#but please don’t come up with the false narrative that he’s racist or anything of the sort

[yorktaylor]

i’m sorry but i’m genuinely baffled at how many people are calling taylor a horrible person because she’s associated with the nfl and that she’s a pushover for being roped into “such a nasty disgusting industry”, like yeah, it’s a fucking industry. industries suck, there’s some awful people in the nfl. but you know what other industry is objectively as awful if not worse? hollywood. what is taylor part of? hollywood! do you think that every person associated with or part of hollywood is a horrible person because it’s an industry that fucking sucks? no! not every nfl athlete is racist or an abuser in the same way not every hollywood star is racist or abusive. it’s the fucking entertainment industry, it houses and creates some nasty people but they’re not the majority.

[lardygaga]

I’m so tired of people trashing the dark pictures anthology because they’re blinded by their until Dawn nostalgia glasses.

Like just say you’re bad at these games and don’t like them because you don’t pay attention and move on. Maybe actually collect clues and analyze hints as opposed to being lazy and you’ll enjoy them

I’m convinced the Until Dawn fanboys don’t like decision based games- considering UD only had about 3 decisions that impact the story. Not saying I dislike until dawn because I do like it, but if I see one more person say “iT dOeSnT fEeL lIkE UnTiL dAwN” I’m going to scream. Go play until dawn???

You’re allowed to subjectively dislike the games… but not if you don’t put in the work. Maybe it sucked simply because you and your choices sucked.

Man of Medan was fantastic. It was scary, and it was the first game to emphasize co op. If you played this game solo your first time, that’s your fault. Sure, the twist can be seen coming if you’re paying attention. However, I’ll never get over my friend killing me and me thinking I died to the grim reaper. It was awesome. The number of endings, the plethora of different paths, and the overall setting were spectacular. People have complained about the twist without knowledge of the story of the Ourang Medan or the movie Ghost Ship. Would you have preferred a direct copy of something that has been done before? The criticism of MOM is completely invalid. Plus, the dark pictures anthology plays on ALL horror tropes. Biological horror is still horror and that doesn’t make it bad writing.

Little Hope has a special place in my heart. Again, people are up in arms about the monsters not being real as if anything would have made sense if they were. The bus driver is haunted by the death of his family in a house fire he caused and tried to blame his little sister. He does this by creating a false narrative in his head of Megan being evil and the witch trials were a perfect metaphor for the events taking place. The locked traits need to be removed because he needs to remember his family by their good traits and be able to forgive himself and put the past behind him. That’s why if the characters don’t face their own demons- they die in the house. It’s not rocket science if you collect the clues and pay attention. But these streamers like to have a cash grab with these games by rushing through making stupid choices and bashing the game and I’m really over it- I’ve had to unsubscribe from so many people over this. Little Hope’s endings are deep and sad- so is the story with Megan, again, if you’re actually being mindful. Those who don’t like LH are too dense to understand it.

House of Ashes hasn’t received as much hate seeing as the whiners finally got their real monsters, however, I did see a reviewer call the game racist which is unfounded and ignorant of the times it was based. The story here is immaculate, and if your choices caused the characters to be unlikeable then maybe make better choices. Salim and Jason have a wonderful friendship and the dialogue is immaculate.

The Quarry could have had more jumpscares and I’m sure they lowered that because people are never pleased. However the quarry is my favorite game because it truly feels like my decisions matter and after seeing just how many routes there Are in this game, I love it more and more every day.

Im worried about the future of these games being in the hands of an audience which doesn’t know how to play them

[mellometal]

Here are the last few things I want to say about Dhar Mann. Because he's not a good person to support and I cannot believe people support him unironically.

I was misguided to an extent in my first response to him on the video he made about ASD. The whole complimenting him thing in my comments was only to ensure that my comments would not be deleted and that I wouldn't get blocked. That's why it sounded like I was sucking up to him in some parts of my comments. I actually WANT people to see them. I would hope at least SOMEONE would resonate with them in some way. I want people to see how videos about subjects he knows NOTHING about and probably will NEVER know about can and do affect people. I don't think he's a good person. At all.

Dhar Mann's videos reek of wannabe superiority. There are some things that people have brought up about him having a savior complex on Reddit, but I don't want to go into the entire psychological aspect of him...if such a thing exists. I may find psychology interesting, but he's not worth going into a whole psychological analysis over. I'm not licensed to do any kind of diagnoses on him anyway.

His morals are extremely watered down with quotes that even kids in preschool can understand. It honestly feels like he's talking down to his audience. (Why does he have an audience? The world may never know.) Dude, NOBODY appreciates being talked down to like they're stupid.

While sometimes, it's obvious that he's trying to come from a good place, it still doesn't change the fact that he doesn't go into WHY the events that happen in the videos are bad, what we can do to change it, nothing. I don't recall him putting down any reputable resources for anything he makes. If he has, it must be like finding Atlantis. For example, in his videos that are supposed to be tackling homelessness, he only goes into the whole narrative that we gotta be nice to homeless people. He never goes into the factors that cause homelessness. He never goes into any statistics. He doesn't share any reputable resources for the homeless population. Just goes into, "Be kind to homeless people!" and nothing else.

Another big example would have to be the videos he has made about disabilities. He seemed to KINDA tackle physical disabilities, but here's the thing. Physically disabled people aren't all helpless victims. Yes, some physically disabled people do require full support doing things. There are other physically disabled people who require moderate support, or even minimal support. Treating physically disabled people like they're just all helpless victims who you should feel bad for isn't helping them at all. They're not subhuman. They're human beings.

The video he made about Autism Spectrum Disorder is personally insulting. Treating ASD like it's a superpower harms autistic people and it honestly sounds like autistic people aren't being taken seriously. Calling ASD a "different ability" instead of calling it a disability (which is what ASD is) treats being autistic like it's a bad thing. (For anyone who found me through my first Dhar Mann post about his video on ASD, y'all already know my feelings about this. For anyone who's new here, doesn't know what's going on, and wants to know where I stand on that video in particular, please refer to that post.)

Like an anonymous person mentioned in the ask they sent earlier, Dhar Mann also made a video that was pro-cop. I knew about the video he made about a bunch of cops in training being sexist towards the only woman, which obviously ain't great either. I've seen that one and it made absolutely no sense to me. Dhar Mann, defeating sexism? *GASP!* We did it, feminists! We can go home now! Not.

Anyways, back to the pro-cop video. I didn't know that he made a video like that, so I searched for it. It was a pretty recent video too...and it's gross. The lady protesting in an alley really shouted in eight point font to "fire all cops". It took some guy stealing her purse for her to "change her mind" about cops.

The "cop" in the video really went into his whole life story about how he risks his life every day for people, fighting bad people (they even had a black man as the assailant trying to threaten a white woman, which is a disgusting racist stereotype and does nothing to help stop police brutality), and basically told this lady "Before you judge me, get to know ME!"

MOTHERFUCKER. FIREFIGHTERS, PARAMEDICS, AND THE ENTIRE MEDICAL FIELD, TO NAME A FEW, RISK THEIR LIVES EVERY DAY TOO. But you don't see a song that says "Fuck the fire department!" or "Fuck paramedics!", do you? (I have some choice words for parts of the medical field because of how some think it's okay to refuse to help people for being LGBT, not taking BIPOC seriously when they seek medical attention, refusing to help people for the religion they practice or lack thereof, the fatphobia, etc. I won't dive completely into it, but if you choose to be in the medical field and you refuse to help people for the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their gender identity, their religious beliefs or lack thereof, their weight, or ANYTHING along those lines, FIND A DIFFERENT CAREER.)

Police brutality towards black people is the highest out of every race. Not to mention that black people are the number one target for the police. The amount of black people being killed by the police will only keep increasing unless we all do something to put an end to police brutality towards black people. Black lives matter, and they ALWAYS will.

Can we also talk about how the police aren't equipped to deal with anything related to mental health or disabilities? Because the way they handle people having mental health crises, disabled people, and mentally ill people as a whole is heartless and ableist. AND THEY HAVE THE NERVE TO PUT ON THEIR VEHICLES THAT THEY'RE SAFE FOR DISABLED PEOPLE AND SHIT IN CERTAIN PLACES IN THE UNITED STATES.

Just because there are good cops, it doesn't make ALL cops good. It doesn't change the fact that ACAB. It doesn't change the fact that the police has way too much funding. It doesn't change the fact that the police need to be reformed. Honestly, in this day and age, there are way too many corrupt cops who want to be all superior and treat people like they're subhuman to see any good cops among them.

I did a little research on Dhar Mann's history before he decided to do all these fucking cringe videos. He was sentenced to five years of probation back in 2014 for five felony counts related to a scheme to defraud the City [Oakland, California] by submitting false claims and receipts in order to receive redevelopment grant money. He pleaded no contest to the five felony counts of fraud. Not a good look!

His voice is ear grating and crusty and he has a very punchable face. Every time I hear his voice, it triggers my fight or flight response.

HEEEEYYYY, DHAR MANN FAM! SO YOU SEE, HE MAKES ALL THESE CRINGE ASS VIDEOS WITH WATERED DOWN MORALS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPICS OF ANY OF THE VIDEOS AND REEK OF WANNABE SUPERIORITY! I hope you learned something from this message! He's not telling stories. He's not changing lives. He's a cringe ass nae-nae baby who can't bother to do actual research on topics he knows NOTHING about. He's ruining lives! Thanks for watching and I'll see you next time!

TL;DR: Dhar Mann is a piece of shit human being. Please stop supporting him.

[plutos-ambassador]

bts/yoongi related

this is not the usual content for this blog so i don’t know how long it’s going to stay up but i just really don’t know where else to rant without getting “cancelled” and attacked for my opinion. this post is in regards to yoongi sampling jim jones in one of his songs. 

before anyone wants to come at me, i’ve supported bts since they debuted, especially yoongi since he is my bias. however, just because i’m a fan of someone does not mean i cannot be objective. that should never stop anyone from being objective and holding people accountable. so do not come into my mentions claiming i’m an “anti” or “not a true fan” just because i have an opposing opinion.

full disclaimer: i am not korean nor am i black so i will not invalidate any of their feelings in this. however, i’ve studied jim jones and his cult and even i don’t know everything about this man. so as someone who’s studied, researched, and had multiple presentations and essays over this man for a graded university course under the supervision of a historian, i don’t even know everything about this man. so, i doubt many fans will understand the gravity of jim jones.

i highly doubt yoongi sampled jim jones with malicious intent, i truly do. but intent does not equate to execution. and in my opinion, it was in bad taste. he could have gotten through that song without ever sampling that man.

if you don’t know who jim jones is, he was a cult leader who manipulated primarily black people into his idea of an afterlife where they would not face racial persecution. he was an evil man. his legacy is based on his cult’s genocide that he orchestrated. it resulted in 918 individuals dying that day, over 300 being children. if i’m not incorrect, about 70% of those individuals were black. he had them drink kool-aid laced with cyanide, a gruesome death that quite literally killed them slowly and from the inside.

he would kill the children in front of the adults so that the parents no longer had anything left to live for. he would routinely have loyalty tests in his cult which resulted in weeding out those who did not blindly follow him. one time this test resulted in a mother willingly offering to kill her son for jones because her son ran away.

these are the things he was known for. what he was not known for was being anti-korean, which is the current rhetoric i’ve seen circulating twitter. this man was racist but there is truly no reason you need to create a false history around someone already so evil.

he was “anti-south korean” not in the sense of race but because this evil man was a communist. he had a bizarrely civil relationship with north korea and had multiple meetings with north korean diplomats. these meetings were towards the end of his life when he was becoming even more senile than he already was. he loved the north korean idealogies and implemented a lot of it into his own cult. all of this is obviously deplorable but he was not anti korean due to race. he was anti south korean because of their government and economic system. he did not go out of his way to harm south korea besides spew rhetoric false to their own ideaology.

if you read many of his transcripts involving south korea, you’ll notice it’s not race based. it’s primarily a lot to do with the US involvement in keeping south korea and north korea separated as he believed that all koreans wanted a reunification.

does that make it any better? not particularly. but you don’t need to create a false narrative for a man who’s already evil enough as it is. does jones having statements over south korea a korean issue? yes. but was he known for this issue? no.

did he kill his adopted korean children during the genocide? yes he did. however, he did not kill only his adopted korean children. he murdered all of his adopted and biological children. it was not a targeted attack, he was just pure evil.

he was known as a mass murderer and creating a cult that blindly followed him due to him spewing ideas of an after life that promised equality. please do not try to downplay the evil he’s done.

i understand that you can look at a situation and separate the evils into categories. but you cannot disregard all of the evil someone has done as a whole. jim jones may perhaps have been “anti-korean” but he was also a mass murderer so to use a sample of him in an idea of making fun of him for being “anti-korean” does not mean he wasn’t a mass murderer. you can’t separate the evil from the man. that is why i disagree with yoongi sampling him.

we don’t know what yoongi was truly intending with the song but i doubt it’s anything malicious. however, regardless of his intent, if a black person is upset with him sampling jim jones, they are valid since they were his primary sought after victims. however, no amount of analysis and theorizing will tell us what he truly meant. you can insinuate and speculate but no one can truly know without the artist explicitly stating it. only he can tell us that.

i do not believe in cancel culture but i do believe in accountability. take what i said as you will. if you disagree with me that’s totally cool and i respect that. however, please do not try to twist an evil story that actually happened to fit a narrative you may think is correct, i beg you.

[reylo-solo]

I have thoughts.

About what happened last night and on nye. If I don’t write them up somewhere I may explode. Don’t read if you don’t want to. I just need to vent. Also I’m on tumblr mobile and it’s still not letting me insert a read more break so I apologize if this clogs your timeline. :/

1. Arrogance. It reeks of pure “I’m famous and can do/say whatever I want” arrogance. Sucks that I thought he was better than that. Disillusionment to the extreme on my part.

2. How is he gonna put out an ad he did with a company, the slogan of which is to “put down your phone” and enjoy life, then turn around in 24 hours and upload something so immature and inflammatory? That’s quite contradictory. I wonder what the company he did the ad with thinks of that? If he keeps behaviour like that up he’s going to find himself losing brand deals and job opportunities. Any director worth their stock knows fans build an empire. How’s it going to look when they see him harassing a group of fans just for a little ego boost? I get a feeling the words “don’t you know who I am? I was in star wars!” may end up being something of a common refrain in the future if that’s the case.

3. He knew what would happen, because it happened on nye. He knew he’d get people upset, get antis and even people with no clue about any of it riled up and shouting “racism” in his name, thus making him trend on twitter. And all the noise made on that platform would flush out the truth: that it all started bc he made a gross misogynistic joke that people didn’t like. It wasn’t specifically reylos that called him out on it either, it was rightfully unimpressed and uncomfortable women, but it’s the shippers he decided to deflect with.

4. Because he did this, and because the truth got drowned out by a bunch of people using us as scapegoats, reylos are being blamed for being racist towards him and Finn since the casting for TFA was announced, when anyone who was actually around at that time knows the racism came from old, white male fans, who said there couldn’t be a black stormtrooper. (And I have to ask - how can reylos be at fault for this particular instance of nastiness when ‘reylo’ as a ship wasn’t even a thing yet? We only had the trailer! We didn’t even know these characters yet! Make it make sense, luv). Don’t get me wrong, though. The racism he faced and has faced through this has been truly awful and unjust. But it wasn’t specifically reylos spewing it, which is somehow what many people seem to have taken away from all of this. The fact that he has done nothing but push this false narrative rather than turn the mirror on the real problem (i.e. the older generation’s “fandom m*nace”) is...haunting to me. It feels spiteful. It feels cruel. I’m sat wondering why. Why use your 1.5 million follower influence to harass a group of people shipping two fictional characters online, when you could put that influence to good use for, idk, a charity against cyber bullying perhaps? Or some other cause he supports? It’s baffling. Almost as baffling as the fact that no one else who’s feeding into this with any kind of public influence cares to look behind the curtain.

5. That being the case, celebrities and other news outlets with large platforms are reporting that we’re a toxic fandom based in racism and bullying. Continuing to spread that toxic narrative that he built to deflect from his own mistake. And why? Because we’re a fandom largely comprised of women, to be sure. We ship a pretty gentile (and canon) enemies to lovers couple. And because we’ve been dogpiled and attacked for four fucking years as it is so he likely knows we can get defensive when wrongfully accused or targeted. This enlarges the conversation; it makes it trend. This inflates his ego. This is why we should not engage.

6. Lastly, I must have been following the right people on all platforms these last four years, because I have never come across a reylo who was racist towards him (or anyone else for that matter) and wasn’t immediately called out and exiled from the fandom for it. That says something.

In short: I’m glad Star Wars is over because I’m tired of being a scapegoat just because I ship two fictional characters in an online fandom space, where it should be safe to do so but apparently isn’t. I’m tired of the bullying and the death threats, and it still isn’t enough to get people to leave us alone. I just want to read and write fic about these two fictional space nerds, and reblog art of them, and talk to the friends I’ve made bc of it all in my own space, where I’m not inviting anyone who doesn’t like reylo to look at or engage with reylo. That’s it. So for someone like him to come in and act that way, with his platform and his connections...it makes me sick. I’ve lost all respect for him. Not that it means anything to him, clearly. Just sucks.

With that out of my system, I continue my day reblogging great posts and writing fic. (Side note: Please don’t reblog this post - I don’t need unwanted attention brought to it. No matter what we say or do, they will not listen. They will not relent. And I don’t have the energy to deal with it rn. I may end up just deleting this later anyway, but I needed to say it somewhere and twitter is REALLY not the place, for so many reasons.)

[positivlyfocused]

Sometimes I Gotta Seethe In Rage

Three weeks ago I wrote how every negative situation is positive. Well this week brought such a crazy-ass example of that, I shared it with all my clients. Now I want to share it with you.

This story is hilarious. I almost wrote "unflattering", but you'll see at the end that this story flatters me in the sense that I saw how this infuriating situation was also a massive blessing.

Summer's sun, blue skies and Oregon's hot breezy air called me out again last weekend. I love working outside along the Willamette River shores. I enjoy Ospreys above and salmon jumping skyward likely avoiding sea lions and their chisel like teeth.

I decided I wanted more of that, so I packed my bike. I packed light, my portable chair, my iPad and nothing more. I planned to finish reading Ross Douthat's The Decadent Society, its insightful take on current reality had my attention for weeks now. I anticipated exploring Douthat's take while enjoying the Oregon summer.

^^The usual spot I work from on summer Oregon days...by the Willamette's beautiful shores... 

That's not what happened though

Oregon's governor recently eased lockdown mandates. With her decree, all of Oregon made similar plans. I expected a few people riverside, but wasn't prepared for crowds that showed up.

A forty minute bike ride turned into an hour while I tried finding suitable, solitary rest stop. I finally decided on a rocky shore devoid of human for lack of any sand. But I had my chair. I didn't need sand.

I parked my bike, set up my chair then settled into Douthat's narrative. Thirty minutes later, a couple with two dogs showed up. The young, tattooed Portlanders led their dogs to the water's edge, unleashed them and threw tennis balls into the river. The larger of the two dogs, a pit-bull, leapt into the water while its smaller puppy companion barked in envy. Then the puppy eased into the water, found it agreeable and went for a swim. I smiled then turned back to Douthat.

Minutes later, the puppy was licking at my bare legs. I'm not a dog person, but I can appreciate a cute pooch. On this day though, I just wanted to read in quiet on a beautiful day. It annoyed me that this dog suddenly was licking my leg. But what annoyed me more was the fact that its owner hadn't done his legal duty of keeping his dog under control.

I lifted my legs away from the pooch, clearly annoyed, which the owner saw. He came bounding to my rescue, scooped up his dog with an apology and returned to his spot. There, he put it on a leash. His partner too re-leashed the Pit-bull.

All that was nice. But it was too late.

I got hooked in frustration-momentum

Momentum is a powerful thing. Especially negative momentum born of oft-told stories. I've harbored negative stories about dog owners who don't keep their dogs leashed and therefore under control as leash laws mandate. So much so it's one of my "pet peeves" (oh god! no pun intended!).

Recently when I read about a "Karen" from Central Park Manhattan who made a racist false police report against a fellow New Yorker who politely asked her to leash her dog in an area where a leash law was in force. The fellow New Yorker, a board member of the New York City Audubon Society who happens to be African American, recorded the whole incident. The recording went viral and popular outrage caused the woman to lose her job and her dog. Reportedly, New York is considering banning her permanently from Central Park and the District Attorney is considering pressing charges against her for making a false police report.

This story came to mind as that puppy slimed me. When its owner grabbed it and apologized, I mused whether he also thought about that Central Park incident.

The problem was, I didn't shake the association, which would have been in my best interest. Comparing my experience to what happened to the Audubon Board Member wasn't really fair. But old stories about my pet peeve combined with that viral Central Park experience in my head creating momentum that swept me up.

For the next half hour I couldn't focus on my reading. My mind swirled around the association, my indignation, my annoyance and frustration....

^^I don't hate dogs. Dogs love me as much as I love them...sometimes...🤣

What happened next was no surprise

The couple decided to pack up and leave, having I suppose, had enough time at the water's edge. As they walked to the bike path, I heard the woman say to someone I couldn't see "Sir, would you mind leashing your dog?"

The irony didn't escape me. "Cosmic Justice" I thought. Little did I know said justice was just getting started...

I couldn't hear the what the person she addressed said, but I heard what she was saying. I also got the annoyance in her tone:

"Why aren't you willing to put your dog on a leash sir?" She asked. I turned, hoping to see who she addressed. I couldn't see that person. She continued.

"My dog isn't friendly," she said. The person said something I didn't hear.

"How many years have you been around my dog sir?" She replied. "I'm telling you my dog is not friendly."

Apparently whoever she addressed had done nothing, so she reached down, picked up what looked like a 40 pound pit-bull and scrambled over rocks the rest of the way to the bike path with her male companion in tow.

I was thinking about karmic kickback, wondering how the couple felt now since they themselves hadn't controlled their (little) dog. Which is why I hadn't noticed that not seconds later another dog was sniffing at my leg!

It's my turn...

I turned in surprise, saw the Husky, then darted around looking for the owner. Presumably this was the same person the young woman spoke with earlier. Finally I saw him sitting in a chair he set up behind me on the bike path's edge.

My indignance increased. "Really?" I thought. "Twice in a row?" What did I expect? I create my reality. Here was the Universe serving me a big pile of pet peeve....a second helping if you will, this time via a Husky and yet another irresponsible owner.

But wait...it gets worse. Or rather, I got worse.

I should have known trying to get the owner to do anything about his scofflaw dog would be futile. After all I saw that play out just seconds ago. Never the less:

"Sir, would you please come get your dog!" I said with force ten annoyance.

The owner looked down at me, at his dog and said "he's alright."

"I'm not!" I said.

The owner said nothing.

At that, I'd had it!

Now I was fully in rage. That's right, I was so angry, I was shaking. I wanted to strangle that damn dog and murder the owner. But I also knew it wasn't the dog's fault. So I directed all my rage (in my mind) at the owner. I wanted to first strangle him, then murder him!

I should mention I had the presence of mind at this moment to see the ironic humor here. A part of me knew what I was doing was ridiculous. It's just a dog. But the principle folks, and the momentum of my pet peeve had me firm in its grip.

Clearly this guy wasn't going to do anything about his dog. There was no way I could recover my state of calm at this point, not to mention focusing on Douthat's prose. I decided then to gather my things and head home in a huff, which took all but a couple minutes.

But I couldn't let it end that way. Noooo.

As I pushed my bike up to the bike trail, I made my "offender" clearly: white male in his 40s, beer in hand, listening to a transistor radio, minding his own business and cool as a 🥒. Perfect contrast to my seething rage, which at this point, boiled over and out my mouth:

"YOU'RE EXACTLY THE KIND OF PERSON WHO GIVES DOG OWNERS A BAD NAME!" I yelled in his general direction. I hopped on my bike and peeled away on the momentum of my righteous indignation. 😂🤣😊

That wasn't the end of it.

A half-mile into my return trip, it struck me. What happened here? Why am I letting this situation shape how I feel? How I feel is more important than how I'm treated. In fact, I know by choosing how I interpret what happens in my life, I can create reality. Here I was doing what a noob at all this "you create your reality" business would do...

At this point, I should stop and say I know sometimes I'm going to get pissed. It's just part of what happens when an eternal being comes into physical reality.

Thinking an enlightened person doesn't get mad sometimes indicates misunderstanding about how physical reality works. Physical reality intentionally offers variety: things I want and things I don't want. After all, how am I to know what I want if I don't know what I don't want?

How am I to know what thoughts feel better than others, if I don't have a negative experience every now and then?

That's what I thought one half mile into my return ride. And that's when I decided I had the power here. I had choice.

So instead of continuing to seethe, I decided to put my attention on something else. Something more pleasing. So I noticed the blue sky. I noticed the green trees. I noticed how much I like riding my bike, how good the sun felt on my bare legs and arms, how good it feels on a Oregon summer day. In seconds I felt better. My feelings reminded me how wonderful it is working from Oregon's riversides:

That's when something amazing happened

The more I thought these thoughts, the better I felt. Then...

Ever had an experience where something happens, you react in a less than ideal way, then, later, you get a thought, an idea, an alternative way you could have responded that might have been more effective?

Well that's what happened. In my increasing happiness I received an alternative scenario that played out in my mind. Rather than throwing a tantrum at the guy, I saw my self calmly rise, gather my things and my chair, walk up to the guy and set up my chair right next to him. So close our chairs touched side by side. Then I sat down, looked at him and began politely talking his ear off.

That's when I burst out laughing, a belly laugh so strong it obliterated my anger. I let this alternative reality play through my mind, adding humorous bits here and there – I saw him looking at me surprised, then trying to ignore me, then suddenly packing up his things and stomping off, dog in tow off leash. I imagined him and I actually having a friendly conversation, chatting away like best friends. I imagined him and I sitting there, me chatting away and he trying to ignore my chatting tsunami in quiet annoyance...

And you know what happened next? The entire situation changed for me. No longer did I see him as the idiot epitome of bad dog ownership. Instead he became a shining example of what I could be.

Consider this:

This guy was doing his own thing, oblivious to what others thought and said about him

This guy was in his own reality, enjoying his life with his dog. So was the dog!

This guy had presence of mind, a centeredness so powerful, he appeared unphased by not only one, but two verbal aggressors trying to knock him off his rocker

As much as I want to vilify him, he demonstrated to me vibrational mastery. And at that point he went from villain to teacher.

I want to be like that. I want to be calm in the face of storms.

And, in fact I am, nearly all the time.

Which is another thing he taught me: that I am that nearly all the time.  When I'm not, there's always something great in the experience I learn about myself and about my Positively Focused practice.

[sabbathism]

People don’t like season 2, and here’s what they have to say :

tl;dr: I answer the web’s most vehement complaints about season 2 of American Gods. If you happen to recognize yourself in one of those, then I suggest thinking about it really really hard and, perhaps, giving the show another chance. If you recognize yourself in several of those, please drop the show. It’s not worth wasting your time and especially not ours. (I put a list of helpful cast and production related facts at the end.)

Hi, Nelle here, I’m but a humble fan who wishes to have fun seeing gods bicker and argue among mortals, complete with the craziest of situations, stellar cast and great visuals. And yet I can’t help but hear things when I start browsing this hellsite in quest of juicy fanworks.

Although I’m no Joan Of Arc, I hear voices from above and here’s what I have to shout back (lest I get burned at the stake)  :

“The pacing is all over the place ! It’s too slow !”

Is it tho ? Pacing has been “all over the place” (really meaning: different from what we avid show-viewers are accustomed to) since season 1, we’ve never gotten straight answers out of anything unless we started listening and paying attention to details. 

The book (you know, the source material) has four parts, the fourth serving as an epilogue to the whole story, season 2 is most definitely meant to close part 1 which, allegedly, had the slowest of pace to begin with. And it doesn’t even have half the new narratives the show has been creating. So no, it’s not slow. I promise you things are happening.

“It needs to follow the actual book more !!”

What’s a good adaptation ? Is it something that is 100% truthful to the source, down to every word ? Is it something that should offer something for people who don’t know the source ? Or, on the contrary, be something inseparable from it ?

American Gods as a TV show offers new things for people who have read the book and for those who haven’t, while keeping the beloved moments and aspects from the original material.

Why add or change stuff ? Well because, if you’re a book reader, you get welcomed into the state of existential dread that comes with not knowing what happen next, I promise it’s part of the fun. But also because author Neil Gaiman believes that he can do more, do better, with something that was written 20 years ago and needed the changes in a lot of places. He’s aware that he has, in fact, a show to make, and not a carbon copy of the book, as well as a fanbase that deserves to be challenged and entertained.

“Why taking the focus off Shadow ? He’s barely the protagonist anymore !”

Because there are..... characters ? who are also part of the story ? Like, actual stories need characters ? But alright, I know it can get confusing when you have a lot of those, here’s how you can still tell Shadow is the protagonist : months of advertising and the entirety of season 1 which was spent following Shadow with only minor breaks allowing other characters to breathe. Trust me they need the development too, or then we’ll really have reasons to complain.

You want a narrative focusing solely on staying in Shadow’s head ? Alright. Try the book. But here’s my take on its narrating choice, as a graduate in english literature : it’s boring. To the point where Neil Gaiman himself got sad that he couldn’t follow other characters.

“They’re not giving the POCs enough space ! Where are the coming to america segments ? At least they gave actual insights.”

Out of every piece of fiction, I truly don’t think you want to get angry at American Gods for how much room it’s giving POCs... (a 20% white cast ensemble, POCs and especially WOCs writers and directors on production, ethnically accurate casting and writing, diversity positive messages, etc) Really I’m sure there are many other places in the fictional industry were the question of diversity is more than legitimate. American Gods has yet to be one of them, by far.

As for the Coming To America stuff, well, there’s not that many in the book to begin with. There are a whole bunch for sure, but we’ve got over quite a few of them in season 1. If there’s more believers you want, we’re served with the latest episode 4, with humans worshiping both Old and New, and interacting with gods. I’m sure we can review that point again once the season is over.

“Those white directors don’t even know how to read or write POC characters !”

*cough*

here’s a list of the POC directors and writers on episodes 2 to 5 of season 2 only :

Deborah Chow (director)

Aditi Kapil (writer)

Salli Richardson (director)

Rodney Barnes (writer)

Orlando Jones (writer)

That’s half the entire director-writer team for these episodes, with Neil Gaiman being involved. You’ll have to point out to me exactly what you mean by “not writing right”.

“New Media ? 1. she’s a bitch, 2. her actress is just plain bad, 3. she’s a hurtful stereotype.” 

And here comes perhaps the trickiest one of all... I’m gonna have to bear with you, as much as you’re gonna have to bear with me :

1. Yes. 2. No. 3. Yes, and it’s a problem, but not for the reasons you think.

First of all, and let’s get it out of the way : actor =/= character nor writing. You think the writing is bad and/or that the character is annoying ? Well, it’s certainly not on the actor. You wanna know the actual level of Kahyun Kim’s acting ? Starring in an Alan Cummings play alongside him. We’ve got a lot to discuss but please keep her out of this.

Second, New Media is an absolute bitch of a character. She’s mocking, manipulative, and too ambitious for anyone’s good. A lot of people seem to love her tho and to that I say good ??? I mean, great if you like her, because she’s got as much potential as the rest of these crazy characters, I’m not here to tell you who you should hate and who you should love.

But there’s a problem you shouldn’t ignore, and that its so far she’s not well written. It’s a terrible thing to say in such a show but she’s really not : because we barely see her talking, because we barely got any scene with her (remember what I said about letting character breathe ?), and because what we’ve seen of her so far is the stereotype of the hypersexualized naive asian girl. Complete with tentacle porn scene. (Whether you felt weirded out, amused or utterly disgusted by this is your own valid opinion.)

The character has been officially described as “the goddess of global content”, “a cyberspace chameleon” and “a master of manipulation.” In recent addition to that, actor Bruce Langley (Technical Boy) has said : “New Media’s willing to be perceived as naive because if she’s being underestimated, when she does make her move, you’d never see it coming, but she knows way more than she lets on.” He then goes on to compare her to Gillian Anderson’s Media.

This proves that the way New Media comes off isn’t a problem of intent (the naive part is calculated and they want the character to be duplicitous, falsely seductive), but of handling, and it’s just as bad. Sure, Gillian’s Media also knew more than she let on for about as much screen time -I’m sure New Media will get to her four scenes in one season-, but she had been grounded in the narrative as her own character, she’s had her exposition speech and time. (See her meeting with Shadow in S01E02) We’ve yet to see that much of Kahyun’s New Media.

Because they do not give her what she needs to be more than a two dimensional character, we find ourselves with a shallow character who doesn’t give too many signs of the thought process everyone seemed to have put into crafting her beforehand, including Kahyun’s acting. This is a serious issue that needs to be handled before the season ends, or she will just stand out like a nasty spot in an overall incredible piece of fiction. Hell even Laura (another very unlikable character) manages to be a great addition to the narrative. Come on people.

You can of course argue that they could have gone for another type or personality for her, other than naive and sex-oriented, for a korean actress to play. You’re right, there’s a lot of aspect of social media that could have been put to work, but not only are we gonna need more than two scenes (at least the tentacles aren’t a regular occurrence so far), but it’s just like they could have not made the Technical Boy hang Shadow. 

The New Gods appear as the ‘general bad idea’ we promote through and associate with their element. Mr. World is gonna be the creepy looking government dude, Tech is gonna be the lanky rude geek, they’re gonna be cold, insensitive and selfish. They’re gonna be the things we don’t like. Throughout season 1, Tech Boy was in the same place we find ourselves in with New Media : he was the loud white racist teenager hating on anon on the net, he was unlikable from start to finish, and it’s only once we got inputs from his actor, the writers, and then now that they’re showing more of his story and personality well after season 1 that we see him as the fully complex and interesting character he is.

Let’s all keep our wits about us, not engulf ourselves in blind hate or love, and encourage the writers to prove us all that this character is worth the while like her actress says.

(I still won’t forgive the bitch, but at least she won’t stick out like a sore thumb.)

(if you want Kahyun’s input on her character and experience, here’s a lengthy interview)

"They don't even know how to write their own character, period !"

By all means, tell me your basis of characterization to declare that characters who didn’t even have enough screentime to have much substance in season 1 (except Shadow, but strangely no one complains about him) aren’t written right when their creator is literally hovering over the writers and actors shoulders, because he wants them to be developed and written right.

It’s not Harry Potter, Neil isn’t making up facts about them to make himself look better, maybe accept that the vision you had in your mind wasn’t entirely accurate to the truth of the characters and that’s okay ? You can still write them yourself however you want, tell the stories you want to tell, Neil has made it very clear that he doesn’t consider fan ideas less valuable than his.

“Bryan has such as specific, unique vision ! They’re just trying to copy it and they’re failing.”

Definitely. No really, you’re right, I’m a big fan of Bryan’s work, I lost my mind like everyone else when he said he wasn’t giving up on Hannibal season 4.

But you know who else has a unique vision ? The seven directors who took over (four of those are women) and the show-runner who had already worked with him beforehand. They’re not trying to copy his style, they’re trying to make a smooth transition so fans like you don’t have a hard time mourning the terrible loss of Bryan and Michael. And for every person who noticed the changes, there were just as many who haven’t even paid attention to it.

Concept : some people may watch shows/movies for the story and the characters, not just for who’s behind the camera. (As far as I’m concerned, I actually like the image better. Everything was killer in season 1, and I think it’s even nicer in season 2.)

“Bryan gave us Salim and the Jinn, and now they’re just gonna be cast aside because those directors lack the LGBT+ sensibility Bryan has !”

Alright, yup, sure. As a member of the community myself, I totally recognize that someone who’s also part of it will know firsthand of the subtleties and details to give the best representation possible on screen. The example of Salim and the Jinn is perfectly fine, since the entire segment was indeed beautifully made. But if we cannot allow people from outside to ponder and think about our lives through writing (which is probably the best way for them to start understanding and broadening their mindset), how can we expect wide representation to improve in any meaningful way ? Especially considering that the show has been casting LGBT+ actors, in an environment where the cast is listened to and solicited on their opinions. 

And especially when Bryan was not the one who gave you Salim and the Jinn. (Because I’ve seen people genuinely believe it.) Neil Gaiman did. He wrote a gay muslim couple in his book 20 years ago, way before it was considered a political statement. He’s also the one who gave strict and specific directions as to how these very characters should be handled. Because if he expanded Salim and his fire boyfriend Jinn’s story from a one-shot to a full story integrated into his entire narration, then it’s certainly not to pull a “bury your gays” or make them miserable. No need to be LGBT+ to be a decent writer and human being.

“Production was a mess anyway, I knew it’d turn out like this. It sucks without Bryan.” 

Define “mess”. Because all the incendiary reports we got throughout early production had been utter bullshit.

Showrunners being “fired” ? Bullshit. “Disastrous” organization ? Bullshit. “Screaming matches” between directors and actors ? Bullshit. Actors “refusing” to come back ? Bullshit.

Every report that wasn’t made through direct input of the cast or production team was not only wildly exaggerated, but also fake ? But please, hear it from Neil himself :

It was weirder for me to read some of the stuff online that said, “Oh, my god, American Gods, behind the scenes, is all falling apart.” I was going, “But they just shot four episodes, and everything is fine. They’re doing some re-shoots, but they’re doing less re-shoots than they did in Season 1.” [...]

I was reading Steven Bochco’s biography on the tube, going into work on Good Omens, every morning, and learning about what went down on Hill Street Blues, and then on NYPD Blue. That was worse, by a factor of thousands, than anything that happened on American Gods. A showrunner came, and a showrunner left. That’s not even an unusual thing. [...] The weirdest thing for me was putting out a thing on Twitter on Season 2, and having a bunch of people go, “We thought this was canceled.” No, it’s not canceled. In its own mad way, it’s on schedule.  

(Source)

The show was never in any danger, much less in jeopardy. It's overreactions to false rumors and dramatic assumptions that can kill a show faster than a showrunner leaving. You want to be critical of a production ? Go ahead, and check your sources and facts. Please. I promise most of the time it’s not worth the worry, much less losing all hope.

“Bryan cared, they’re just ruining what he’s built.”

I dare you to watch any cast interview and tell me these people don’t care about the show, and that they do not value the work everyone else (from hair department to makeup artists, producers, writers, directors and costume team) puts into it as well.

I’ve watched my fair share of shows, I’m curious about production and behind-the-scenes material in general, and I’ve never seen a group of people being so genuinely happy and passionate about what they do and create together.

Neil took time out of preparing Good Omens (which he was showrunning himself) to be more active because he knew things would be different between season 1 and 2. Ricky Whittle (Shadow) had his contract reviewed to better accommodate shooting and planning. Orlando Jones (Nancy) contributed to writing episodes (especially regarding Black history and representation) and brought inputs on characterization. Ian Mcshane (Mr. Wednesday) participated in directing when he explicitly said during season 1 that he wasn’t interested in working as a director on this kind of show.

And that’s for the well-known names only. Go on the American Gods hashtag on instagram, you’ll find all the various artists who participated in crafting all the details found in new episodes. They’re out there talking about how excited they were to work on it all, how they did it, the love they have for the show and crew. They’re active and positive in every way you can be, please tell me how much they don’t care.

Production made the choice of taking its time making this season rather than rushing it when it’s been very clear that delaying can cause massive loss of viewers, because they care more about how the show comes out than what people actually think. They took in stride whatever problem a show of this magnitude could naturally encounter (again guys, no disaster happened) and worked to solve it the best way they could because they were perfectly aware that we fans care. And somehow that’s what made some of yall disappointed ??

If you seriously think Bryan (and Michael, some people forget about him smh) cared more about American Gods than these people -when he, in fact, cared just as much-, then by all means, leave right with him.

(Also uhm, idk if you noticed, but they’re both still credited in the fucking opening. Because, you know, they’re going by the bases they’ve settled.)

Some (hopefully) helpful facts :

+ Bryan and Michael weren’t fired, they walked out of the show after mutual understanding with the rest of the production that they weren’t agreeing on budget and realization. They concluded that pushing it would just be harmful to the show.

+ Likewise, Jesse Alexander (second showrunner) wasn’t evicted but stepped out once disagreements rose as to how to handle the end of the season. Again, they found a solution fairly quickly.

+ Gillian Anderson had only signed for season 1. Whether her character will ever be seen again (probably in flashbacks) is entirely up in the air. No promises, no impossibilities.

+ Both Kristin Chenoweth (Ostara) and Chris Obi (Anubis) have not been able to contribute to season 2 due to conflicts in their schedules.

+ Neil Gaiman has been much more involved in the production of season 2 as he had finished shooting Good Omens, something which took up most of his time when season 1 was produced.

+ Taking time producing a show =/= production being a disaster.

+ Always go for the reports/articles involving interviews and/or inputs of the persons actually working on the project (cast members, producers, writers, directors). Those are the most reliable sources you can fight. (Just remember that there’s always a possibility for fake news/drama online !)

[nixonthedark]

Trump by 10m

Prediction. Trump Win by 10,000,000 Votes

by Nixon the Dark

I know there's a few days left, but I'll predict and risk: Trump wins popular vote by 10,000,000. I see his support in subtle ways on Twitter. And it’s huge despite Twitter doing everything it can to suppress that idea from getting out.

I don't trust Twitter polls. But I believe anecdotal Twitter comments are a barometer of truth. They are resistant to "comm-botification" (commodified bots). They have the feel of conversation. And they take a bunch of different forms. If they are mimetic (viral), they have the same message, but no two are alike. They're phrased uniquely.

On political Twitter, the vast majority of voting anecdotes go one direction: people who didn't vote Trump in 2016 but will vote for him now.

By a factor of at least 50 to 1, I see these comments as opposed to the reverse (people who voted for Trump in 2016 but now will vote for Biden). And they come in all varieties. It is not just "I voted against Trump in 2016, I'm voting for him now." Commenters only occasionally refer to themselves. As often, they also mention their relatives, neighbors, coworkers, etc. (people who may not be on Twitter).

Are these a reliable barometer? Yes.

Here was my clincher. In early October, a scientist (definitely not a conservative) with 1.2m followers recently tweeted that his life-long Republican relative decided to vote for Biden. Whenever I see these comments, and I looked a lot of places for them, I ready every comment available.

One of the reply comments caught on: this scientist was fishing for replies of agreement ("low key Biden polling"). Why? Because people copy each other. We’re mimetic. If we hear about a Trump defector, and we are one, we chime in. How could we not? Trump is the most hated president since Lincoln and his haters online have no fear of repercussion. So if Twitter was filled with Trump defectors, his is how you’d find them. Tease them out via mimicry.

There were a few. Obviously. But only a few? This guy has 1.2m followers and it's three weeks to the election! What are these people waiting for? The Trump-converted folks, the ones who do fear social repercussion, have not been shy about sharing their anecdotes.

The same people who have been talking shit about Trump on Twitter non-stop for 5 years couldn't be bothered to share their own stories of people who they also know who abandoned Trump since 2016? Why not? Where is the uncertain suburban housewife or girlfriend?  Is she keeping quiet? Why doesn’t this anecdote go viral?

Because Trump is so hated by Twitter users, who are commenting and saying all manner of mean things about him. The defector is always welcome when he or she does share their story. Welcome with open arms.

But in fairness to them, suppose they are shy. They’re voting for Biden. There’s no enthusiasm for him. It is a little embarrassing. I have no doubt there are some Trump defectors who are keeping quiet. But why aren’t they represented as “my wife” or “my husband” by some other Twitter user? There are. But it’s always only a handful among thousands of comments.

If this scientist, among the many other parts of anti-Trump Twitter I’ve visited, can’t generate a viral anecdote, it doesn’t exist. Keep in mind, Twitter is an information war battlefield filled with lies and truths. Despite that, these Trump haters, who would do anything to get him out of office, can’t even be bothered to simply make up fake Trump defectors. There is no army of anecdote Twitter bots sharing their stories of leaving Trump.

Trump lovers, en masse, are not creating false local anecdotes by the thousands. And Trump haters aren't either. This phenomenon, the impulse to echo an anecdote, is very “lie resistant.”

Obviously, much of the scientist's thread was filled with "liar" memes (pro-Trump people saying the Trump defector comment was a lie) and many varied strains of Trump hate. Also, even worse for Biden, plenty of the comments again told the opposite story. The comment thread designed to trigger people to come out of the woodwork to proclaim they’ve walked away from Trump did the opposite. Trump won the thread by about 2-to-1.

He wins most such threads. Only on a few comment threads I found specifically by partisans bragging about Trump defection, did Biden win the anecdote battle. On the rest, Trump won bigly.

The people who hate Trump say things like "He'll finally lose" "landslide Biden" "worst thing for our country" etc. But they don’t mimic the anecdote. In other words, the people who proudly proclaim Biden will win never volunteer anecdotes about voters they know. They reflect their Trump hatred/Biden optimism by point to polling data. And think that their own echo chamber of Trump hate confirms the polling.

Yes, this is unscientific. It’s a hunch. But to accept that there may be some nefarious information war afoot, I’ll concede there’s a few pro-Trump bots making all these unique comments. If you cut the number in half, Trump converts outnumber Trump defectors by 25 to 1.

In my personal life, people I know, unrelated to anything on Twitter, including myself, Trump is net 15 votes ahead. Of everyone I know and speak to anecdotally, I fit this profile. I was anti-Trump in 2016. Pro-Trump now. I know several others like me and I do not have a single known Trump defector in my social circle. I know plenty of people that hated him in 2016 and hate him now. Nobody who loved him then and hate him now.

Other supporting reasons.

Separate twitter anecdotes that don't qualify as polling but serve similar purpose: many anonymous/disaffected liberals now stating the obvious, that their vocal minority is out of control with rioting and terrorism. And as many of us notice, the vocal Dems are now at Nazi-level open hatred and disgust.

Other observations in support of this prediction.

The weekend of October 10, I watched a handful of Joe's recent campaign stops. Turned the sound down and fast-forwarded through them. Only looked for one thing: citizen supporters. I don't see them. He gave a recent speech in an AZ or NM shopping plaza. Based on what was on-screen, there were ten times as many handlers, media, and photo-op human props (like a kid wearing a sombrero doing a lasso trick) as citizen supporters. The attendance is so sparse and the energy so lifeless, that my lying eyes tell me the general public doesn't care, at all, about Joe.

If there were throngs of people, the cameras would show them, even if doing so had a "superspreader" implication. They know the value of seeing energy and excitement for the candidate is way more important than looking like COVID hypocrites. The benefit drastically outweighs the cost, especially considering rank hypocrisy has never stopped the Left before. So there's no basis to assume thousands of people came to hear him speak. He gets "dozens".

The counterargument: Biden supporters are enthusiastic, but respect the danger of COVID and are staying indoors. If so, the media would reflect the enthusiasm in other ways. I'm exposed to a lot happening on the left. I NEVER see anything about a Biden speech go viral in a good (for him) way. CNN/MSNBC kiss Kamala's ass and are pro-Biden, but do they ever even show clips of Biden making a compelling point in a campaign speech?

Are the MSM airwaves dominated by Biden on the stump? Barely. You have to look for his speeches. MSM’s coverage ranking: 1. about Trump, 2. about Biden (positive only), 3. about Kamala, and finally, 4. (almost never) coverage of Biden. They had to stop showing coverage of Trump because it was persuading away too many of their viewers. The difference between coverage about and coverage of is massive.

If there was anything worthwhile coming from Joe's mouth, it would dominate the MSM and YouTube would shove it down my throat. Instead, they hide it. It is a hollow coalition. I see about 50,000 voting for Joe Biden. About 30,000,000 will vote against Trump. And another 20,000,000 will vote Democrat because they always do. And maybe 10,000,000 dead people also vote Biden.

Scott Adams recently noted that every metric that can be rigged favors Biden and every metric that can't be rigged favors Trump. I would add: all the reasons suggesting a Biden win are abstract. All the reasons suggesting a Trump win are tangible.

Abstract: Leftists say Trump will lose, DUH, because he's a terrorist, racist, incompetent, etc. Abstract: other random people on twitter say they hate Trump. Abstract: "look at the polls." Abstract: MSM's eternal "walls are closing in" narrative about Trump.

Tangible: 10x as many Trump parades around the country as Biden (all better attended). Tangible: the above-referenced anecdotes (25x over the reverse). Tangible: massive red shift in voter registrations all over the place. Tangible: Trump's campaign has been knocking on doors for over a year while Biden's team has just started. Tangible: huge numbers of Trump trolls frequently showing up at Biden events. Tangible: Warren, Dr. Jill, Bernie, etc., speaking to miniscule crowds while WalkAway crowds are massive. Tangible: the Reign of Terror by the hard-left scaring ordinary citizens into silence or preference falsification ("Yes, I'm voting for Biden, please don't murder me too").

I still allow that my own bubble may be shielding me from Biden supporters despite my efforts. Thus, I keep looking. I like the comedy of Trump winning big electoral and losing by 20,000,000. But I suspect the citizens in these blue enclaves will finally let the Dems have it.

There are several massive Trump gatherings in California, of all places. Thousands of citizens, in the bluest of blue states, marching just to show love for Trump. They weren't there to see Don Jr. or Pence or some surrogate. Just Trump love. Even though for many their votes won’t count electorally. But they’ll pull the lever for him anyway.

There were two big Trump sign in my area (a nice neighborhood). Both defaced. A Denver news channel hired someone to murder a Trump supporter on October 10. Supporters know they're at personal risk in any Trump gathering, yet they go anyway. Brings tears to my eyes. If this is the visual for "out of the closet" Trump support, the closeted Trump support is also massive, and much bigger than 2016.

Not predicting the deepest blue states go red. But the eye test tells me that even these states will have way more red turnout than usual.

I helped one of my non-voting friends register. He wants to vote for Trump just as a middle finger to LeBron for shoving leftist garbage down his throat as an NBA fan.

The curious silences.

First, Obama. He gave a ho-hum Zoom speech at the convention. To my knowledge, he hasn't given any big speeches since. If he has, the MSM isn't covering it. There are three weeks left and he's MIA? Extremely suspicious. Fear of "superspreader" stigma is not enough of a reason for him to be so quiet.

Second, no Clintons? A few sound bits and quotes and that's it. They are really old. Maybe legit COVID risk. And being so unpopular, there are at least real reasons for them to not make big appearances. 

Third, what about celebrities? I understand they can't do huge, "star-studded" concerts with COVID. But nothing is stopping them from putting on a show or grabbing headlines. Yet they're quieter than usual. I don't think it's because they finally, humbly, realized they are doing more harm than good.

From all I observe, the only people really campaigning for Joe and Kamala are Joe and Kamala (plus some of their foot soldiers like Bernie, Liz Warren, Peter Mayor). It's rather quiet on the Left establishment front. They've been talking about how awful Trump is for 5 years. But now, when it matters the most, they aren't really acting like it the way they usually do.

I expect in the last couple weeks we'll see some big names on the stump. But why the wait? Isn't it crunch time already? Trump is the most hated Republican by their establishment ever. And it's not even close. Yet aside from pundits, NBA/SNL/Colbert/etc., and people talking shit on twitter/podcasts, it's like the big names are keeping a low profile. The dark money is flowing big time, and big tech is doing it's thing. But I see none of the normal "final push" noise you expect to see.

As of October 29,2020, more celebrities have come out to campaign. Obviously. But the energy isn’t quite there. At all.

Finally.

There are other metrics working in Trump’s favor. College campuses are a ghost town. There will not be the normal election day parties at the polls. College kids overwhelmingly vote liberal. But they don’t overwhelmingly vote. If not at college, where guys can possibly use a trip to the polls as an opportunity to get laid, he probably won’t do the same from his high school bedroom. Will 19-year-old girls be rushing to the polls to yank a lever for Joe Biden?

Conclusion.

Trump will be re-elected. Trump will win the popular vote. Trump will win it by a shocking margin. Shocking to people who put their faith only in their own hatred of him and the polls constructed by people with equivalent hatred.

Donald Trump’s initial nomination as the Republican candidate in 2016 had more impact on America than the prior four presidencies combined. His initial victory had more impact than the four before that. His full first term had more impact than the four before that. His legacy is already, in one term, on par with that of Franklin Roosevelt.

Joe Biden campaigned like he was running for Mayor of Scranton, PA. Donald Trump campaigned like he was running for President against Abraham Lincoln. The result on Tuesday will reflect that, but not as much as it should. Barring tragedy, it will take at least 10 years from the date he leaves office before it becomes clear that he should have won by 100,000,000.

[doublehex]

Impressions of 7x02 “Stormborn”

So we got the second episode. Let’s have a chat.

Dragonstone:

We open up with a fierce storm raging outside Dragonstone, and I love this for several reasons. First off, the obvious allusions to the night that Daenerys was born, but most importantly I love the imagery of it. It is nearly black, save for the outlines of thunder strikes and the fire from within the Targaryen keep.

The scene opens with strife amongst Daenerys’ advisors. Elaria Martell has no shame over killing Tyrion’s niece Myrcella back in the final episode of Season 5, and I have to say I was disappointed by how it was played out. Tyrion seems to just casually accept what Elaria has done, a shrug off his shoulder. He should be pissed, and demanding from Daenerys some kind of retribution. I really do hope that something comes out from this, because otherwise it would just seem the showrunners are just waving off a critical relationship between characters.

Daenerys questions Varys about his loyalty, and I really do need to ask…why now? This is a conversation that needed to happen, but not after months of sailing together across the Narrow Sea. Why did Dany not speak with Varys in the final episode of season 6? It just seems awkwardly placed, although it is decently written.

Varys’ character suffers from cutting out the Golden Company plot from the books. Without Varys’ “perfect prince”, it doesn’t make much sense for him to have backed Viserys in the first season. He should have known that Viserys was the same kind of man that Aerys was, so why would he go for that? It feels like the writers are trying to salvage a ship that is made out of seaweed and is on fire.

I do however like Daenerys’ response – that if Varys felt she is doing a poor job as queen, he will say so to his face. And her threat of killing him if he should conspire against her shows she is not going to just accept his loyalty. Varys has jumped from monarch to monarch several times over now. He was essential for bringing Dorne and the Reach into the fold, and Daenerys is in need of a spymaster. But she does not trust him one bit, nor should see.

Then we get a Melisandre scene, where she reveals that perhaps Daenerys is the Prince(ss) That Was Promised. In the books, the revelation that the prophecy may have suffered a grammatical mistranslation came about as a sort of bitter moment…Aegon had been mistaken all along, and perhaps his error resulted in Rhaegar’s rash decision. Here it’s played as a mediocre female power moment.

Also, why is Melissandre in the throne room? Dany should be there on the stone throne, and Melissandre should be escorted in. Dany sees herself as queen – she should be showcasing that as much as possible.

When they plan for how Daenerys will retake the Seven Kingdoms, it is only her and Tyrion that vouches for the least amount of blood shed as possible. They realize that the Dothraki and Unsullied will only fan the xenophobic flames of the Westerosi. In order to establish Daenerys as a rightful ruler, it can’t be the Essosi that take King’s Landing. The Reachmen and Dornish will lay siege to King’s Landing.

This scene does a good job of showcasing what everyone wants out of Daenerys. Yara just wants the Iron Islands to be independent, she wants a quick end to the war. Ellaria and Olenna want Cersei to suffer, damn the consequences. Daenerys’ alliance is a fragile on at best. Besides the racial tensions between Dorne and the Reach, which have always been high, the alliance is split on how to proceed. It seems only the fact that Daenerys has dragons and a formidable army is what keeps the others from abandoning the cause.

At the end, Olenna tries to remind Dany that she is a dragon, so she must “be a dragon”. Olenna is trying to push Daenerys towards fire and blood, highest amount of casualties, giving the Lannisters as much misery as possible, and one can’t help but worry that this will be the show’s version of the “dragons plant no trees” from the books.

The Missandei and Grey Worm romance has finally come to it’s…blunt conclusion. Although it was good to hear Grey Worm speak of what the training of the Unsullied was like, the romance between these two characters have felt very contrived and forced. The sex scene is rather mild by the standards of the show, which comes as a relief, because the dialogue leading up to it was as awkward as one could get. One really has to ask just what this side plot added to the series, that couldn’t be better spent somewhere else.

Kings Landing:

Cersei seems to have taken Jaime’s advice to heart. She is doing her best to rallying the support of the Southern lords…and that seems to means just the Reach, if Randyll Tarly’s presence is anything to go by. The language she uses in her speech reminds me a great deal of Trump, where she is relying on an appeal of the Other and objectively false claims to secure a base.

It may have been unintentional or not, but I got several ISIS vibes when we had Qyburn defame Balerion’s skull with the ballista. They start off that scene with a bit of a history lesson, showcasing that Balerion is a big part of how the Seven Kingdoms were forged. It’s a priceless relic for all intents and purposes. Then we have Cersei deface it, and look pleased about it.

It seems to me that D&D are trying to create parallels between modern day and with Cersei. She has overturn the political system, going against the will of the people, to secure power. Now Trump did not perform a coup d’état like Cersei has. As far as we know, his election was legal. Influenced by outside forces, beyond a doubt, but legal. Most people did not want Trump as president, and almost nobody in Westeros wants Cersei to be their queen.

Another comparison between Team Lannister and the Alt-Right is the racist language Jaime has employed in recruiting Randyll Tarly to their side. Othering the Unsullied and the Dothraki in an appeal for Westerosi Nationalism (and luring the prospect of a new Paramount Lord of the Reach) seems to have worked on Lord Tarly.

One very keen thing to take away is that Jaime states that he no longer likes his sister. A rift is growing between the Lannister twins, and it will surely culminate in Jaime having to make a choice.

Winterfell:

Jon is finally starting to listen to Sansa. He speaks to her about the summon to Dragonstone, and she is wary. Despite her insistence that Tyrion is a good man, it is too risky. Sansa is still very much in bunker mode – after years of witnessing her family come under siege, she views anyone else but a Northman as a threat. She is not entirely wrong, but Sansa is also focused on the Southern threat, while Jon is focused on the Northern one.

In the end, Jon goes against the pleas of all his lords (including Lyanna Mormong) and accepts the invitation. Jon is getting flashbacks to his time as Lord Commander, when he is the sole voice for an unpopular action that must be taken. Even if it weren’t for Daenerys’ dragons, the North has been under siege for years. Food supplies are low, men are short. There’s a reason that boys and girls are being taught to fight. They need more manpower against the White Walkers, and Daenerys’ army is precisely what they need.

But once again, Sansa openly objects to Jon’s proposal in front of their lords. D&D continue to strike the same source of conflict between these two characters, in a way that seems artificial and forced. Especially when Jon rewards her with ruling the North in his absence. We just saw Jon seeking her counsel a scene earlier – why doesn’t he tell her his plans in private? The Starks look divided, and that won’t look good in front of the Northern nobility.

Petyr Balish also seems to be out of place this season. There is no clear understanding of just why, precisely, he is in the North, or what he is trying to accomplish. He may view chaos as a ladder, but the ladder doesn’t seem to be leading him anywhere. And the creep vibes he gives off does not seem to serve a purpose. In the earlier seasons, Petyr was very good at being everyone’s friend. That skill seemed to have evaporated by season 7 has rolled around.

Just what is Balish’s endgame plan? We are not getting much of a sense that he has one. Just like Varys, the changes to the narrative post season four has left Balish hanging.

Oldtown:

Sam’s arc is quickly becoming one of the best parts of the season. With an emphasis on being “hard rock Hogwarts”, the pacing of these scenes is stellar. They are glorified info dumps, but they are info dumps with style, and I am along for the ride. Maester Slughorn…err, Marwyn…no, Ebrose, sorry, is a darkly charming mentor for Sam.

The Grandmaesters actually had a good reason for hiding the greyscale cure – it tends to get the treater killed. But Samwell doesn’t have a say no attitude, and by golly he is going to save Ser Jorah. No matter what.

The cure for greyscale being entirely mundane instead of magical was a sigh of relief. And with the cure being to actually carve out the corrupted skin, one could not think of a better face for a character with morals are corrupted and dubious as Jorah Mormont. Next time, Ser Jorah, do not enslave people just to fulfill the debts of your wife. Also, don’t abuse the trust of a young woman and violate her privacy by kissing her without permission. No matter how sexily Ian Glen can growl “Khaleesi”, that is unforgivable.

And he does nothing for the narrative anyways, except slows it to a crawl.

Arya:

And the best scene transition goes to…pus soaked flesh into chicken pot pie! Mark Mylod had to be crackling as he directed that, and I wouldn’t blame him one bit. Grossing people out is a wonderful hobby to have.

Say one thing for season seven, and say that Arya’s arc has been on point, and her time in the inn is no exception. Watching her eat the pie surely made the entire audience hungering for something to stuff down their gut. You could hear every crunch, see the crumbs get stuck on Maisie Williams’ cheeks, and just get the sense that the pie was really damn good.

We also got a sense that the Hound had a profound impact on Arya. Her statement to having baked some pies is the kind of casual appeal to murder that sounds like it would come from Sandor Clegane’s mouth.

Arya also seems to have not realized that any of the Starks were alive, up until Hot Pie drops the fact that Jon took back Winterfell and was the King in the North. That changes her trajectory completely, from killing Cersei to reuniting with her family. Although that warms the heart, one has to wonder just what her last line to Jaqen H’ghar was supposed to mean. If she was “going home”, why was she not in Winterfell already?

The scene with Nymeria was, of course, wonderful, and D&D avoided the expected trap of having Nymeria rejoin with Arya. They haven’t been with each other for years, and Nymeria has long since found her own path in life. Nymeria has a pack, and Arya is on her way to reunite with hers.

Oh, of course this happens the moment Jon heads south for Dragonstone, but that’s plot convenience for you.

The Battle in the Narrow Sea:

So, we got one good scene and one bad one. The interaction between the Sand Snakes is almost…endearing. I actually found it a bit heart warming to see these three half-sisters are toying with each other. It almost makes one forget that they went and killed their nephew and joked about it.

But then we get the most awkward flirting with Yara and Elaria. “A foreign invasion is in progress”. Good god. They improvised most of those lines, and it really shows.

Once that nastiness is out of the way, we get a real sense of just what type of villain Euron Greyjoy is meant to be. The book version was an sorcerous pirate captain with delusions of eldritch power. Show Euron is the Mountain on the Sea. An absurd murderer with no desires to hold back his bloodlust. From the moment the Silence rams into the flagship of the Greyjoy fleet, Euron is an absurd villain.

And he rocks that role. Euron is utterly bloodthirsty that reflects the raised stakes of the series. Daenerys has brought dragons to Westeros, but Euron is showing us the true meaning “fire and blood”. Between the flaming ballista bolts and the Iron Islanders carving through each other, we get plenty of both.

The show does allude to how Euron from the novels would cut the tongue out of his crewmates. They are all silent, not speaking a single word, and one of the final shots is them cutting out the tongue out of the survivors.

The scene ends with Theon facing a new Ramsay. Seeing the way the Greyjoy loyalists are butchered by the crew of the Silence reminds Theon all too much of his abuser, and he can’t take it. Alfie Williams deserve an award for this scene alone. He utterly sells just the shame and fear in Theon.

When the episode draws to a close, Theon is left behind, just another bit of wreckage in Euron’s wake.

The episode opened with a storm of water, and it ended with one of blood.

[toldnews-blog]

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/technology/entertainment/watch-jussie-smollett-pissed-off-after-alleged-attack/

WATCH: Jussie Smollett 'pissed off' after alleged attack

Transcript for Jussie Smollett ‘pissed off’ after alleged attack

So is your interview, jussie smollett and so many questions about what happened. It’s been two weeks and there are very few leads leaving many to have questions about that night. Why did you hesitate to call the police. There’s a level of pride there. We live in a society where as a gay man, you are considered somehow to be weak and I’m not weak. I am not weak. And we are as a people are not weak. So during that time before they came, took them about maybe a half hour to come and during that time I was looking at myself just like checking myself out. I saw the bruise on my neck like the little — the rope burn around my neck and then — but I smelled bleach. I know the smell of bleach and I saw on my sweatshirt it had marks on it like spots on it when you have a bad bleach job, so then I was like there’s bleach on me too so when the police came, I kept the clothes on, I kept the rope on. You had the rope on the entire time. It wasn’t like wrapped around but, yeah, I wanted them to see. I wanted them to see what this was. I told them that what happened, everything. I also asked them to turn their body cams off because they were trying to stay in the hallway. I was like please come in. I don’t want a big scene with my neighbors and the second round of police officers, I went down to where it happened and I walked them through exactly what happened and I looked up and I saw that there was a camera directly on the light post that is in the intersection so I’m like, there it is. Reporter: A potential break in the case that would eventually fall apart days later. And then the detective told me the camera inside of the casing was facing north so they didn’t have it. And that was disappointing. . The vast majority of people have been supportive and loving and understanding and as time has gone on that there’s no — it’s 2:00 in the morning, you’re going to subway. Subzero. Subway is open 24 hours. People kill me when they say things like that. It’s open for 24 hours for a reason so when you’re hungry at night and you ain’t got no food, you go to subway. The camera facing north, how is that my issue? It feels like if I had said it was a Muslim or a Mexican or someone black, I feel like the dourters would have supported me a lot much more, a lot more and that says a lot about the place that we are in our country right now. Reporter: Many of those doubts around the issue of his phone with some wondering why he didn’t initially hand it over to authorities. They wanted me to give my phone to the tech for three to four hours. I’m sorry, but I’m not going to do that. Why? Because I have private pictures and videos and numbers. My partner’s number. My family’s number. My cast mates’ numbers, my private email, my private song, my private voice memos. I don’t know what that’s going to be to hand over my phone for — honestly by then inaccurate false statements had already been put out there. Earlier this week he submitted phone records from within an hour of the incident but Chicago police said they were limited and heavily redacted adding they need additional information to corroborate the time line. His attorneys tell us they are willing to cooperate. Smollett says he’s been troubled by inaccurate claims. What other ones had you heard. That I said they were wearing Maga hats. I never said that. I didn’t need to add anything like that. They called me a . They called me a . There’s no which way you cut it. I don’t need some Maga hat as the cherry on top of some racist sundae. I’ve heard that it was a date gone bad, which I so resent that narrative. I’m not going to go out and get a tuna sandwich and a salad to meet somebody. That’s ridiculous. And it’s offensive. Yes, there’s grinder, yes, there’s jacked. There’s all of these things which I have not been on in years. I can admit I was on it back in the day. I was single. You know what I’m saying? But I haven’t been on that in years. What were your injurys? They did x-rays. I didn’t have — it was reported that I had like fractured ribs or cracked ribs or something like that, that wasn’t true. I was just in a lot of pain, you know, my clavicle was messed up. My rib was bruised but I wasn’t — nothing was cracked like I walked into the hospital. I walked out of the hospital. Why do you think you were targeted? I can just assume, I mean, I come really, really hard against 45. I come really, really hard against his administration and I don’t hold my tongue. I want to ask you about jussie smollett. I think that’s horrible. It doesn’t get worse as far as I’m concern Were you aware that he made that statement. I saw it. I don’t know what to say to that. You know. You know, I appreciate him not brushing over it. There is no doubt in your mind what motivated this attack? I could only go off their words. I mean, who says , “Empire.” This Maga country. Ties a noose around your neck and pours bleach on you and this is just a friendly fight? I will never be the man that this did not happen to. I am forever changed. And I don’t subscribe to the idea that everything happens for a reason but I do subscribe to the idea that we have the right and responsibility to make something meaningful out of the things that happen to us, good and bad. Again, that’s the first time he’s giving such a detailed account. He was really excited when he saw the camera. No way he could have known it was turned away. Detectives didn’t know — it was inside the casing it was facing the other direction and he had no idea about that and he — I asked if there W other possible threats that he had received and he did talk about the letter that was sent to the fox studio where “Empire” is done. Police received that letter and more importantly, there’s many reasons why jussie wanted to sit down, first to say thank you to his many supporters, to answer the questions, the critics but the times that he became emotional is when he was talking about gay youth and the lgbtq community, the message for them and how they are viewing how this is being handled. But he seemed pretty forthcoming. Nothing was out of bounds. There was nothing told not ask and he truly wanted to — he’ll explain in the next hour the four main reasons why he wanted — A lot of anger there too. Oh, yes. He’s not just angry at what happened then he’s angry at what happened now and realizes, he’s on social media and realizes that people, you know, some people are going to look at his interview and think one thing — he has no control over that. But he is — is adamant and as I said earlier the police have said he’s been consistent, that he’s been credible and cooperative and the investigation is ongoing. They’re still investigating. Just two weeks. A lot more coming up in the

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

[duaneodavila]

Rollins’ Good Intentions and Bad Question

There can be little question but that her election as a serious reform prosecutor acknowledged her plans to not prosecute a list of offenses that constituted crimes. Suffolk County, Massachusetts, District Attorney Rachel Rollins was up front about it. She campaigned to be the first black female prosecutor and she provided the list of crimes she would refuse to prosecute.

After being elected, but before taking office, she learned that not everyone was going to love her for it.

A group called the National Police Association (NPA) has filed an ethics complaint against Rollins — before she has even taken office. As Carissa Byrne Hessick, director of the Prosecutors and Politics Project at the University of North Carolina School of Law explained on Twitter, the complaint is utter nonsense. It’s based not on any actual ethical violations, but on Rollins’ campaign promise to not prosecute 15 low-level nonviolent offenses, ranging from public trespassing to drug possession.

The complaint wasn’t really a legitimate effort, as much as a press release masquerading as a complaint. And it recognized as much. Just as Rollins was elected by voters who were told of her plans, those whose livelihoods were built on the quick and dirty busts for low-level offenses saw their career prospects dim.

So why would a group such as the NPA be so opposed to Rollins’ proposal? Well, for starters, if police officers stop arresting people for low-level offenses, there would be less for police officers to do, which could well result in fewer police officers. In some jurisdictions, officers are evaluated based on how many stops and arrests they make, mostly because those are easier things to measure than how effective they are at preventing crime.

But the joke here was that Rollins hadn’t yet done anything. She couldn’t. She had yet to take office, had yet to implement any of her proposals. There can be no such thing as an anticipatory ethical violation. Even so, Radley Balko argues that this wouldn’t be an ethical issue, but a policy issue, and since Rollins was elected based upon her policy position not to prosecute 15 offenses, inter alia, it’s entirely vaccuous.

Of course, whether it’s purely policy is unclear. The job of prosecutor isn’t a policy making job, but an executive function. There’s plenty of discretion in the execution of the job, but rejecting wholesale the dictates of the legislature as to what conduct constitutes an offense has some separation of powers problems. Discretion in individual cases is recognized as part of the prosecutorial function; refusal to acknowledge the policy decisions of the legislative branch of government when you don’t like them is another matter.

But there is another question raised by Rollins’ election, and it was expressed by Rollins herself:

Rachael Rollins stood before 50 union employees, many of them black and Latino, and revealed a provocative question she planned to ask prosecutors seeking to keep their jobs when she takes over as Suffolk district attorney.

“Why did you apply for a job where you would be putting people of color in jail every single day?” 

This is a bad question. A fallacious question. A dangerous question coming from a person elected to be a prosecutor. It’s little different than asking a criminal defense lawyer why they applied for a job that would put killers and rapists back on the street. It’s that awful a question.

Addressing her new “troops,” she backed off her ridiculous question.

“ ‘I want everybody here to relax,’ ” he recalled her saying. “ ‘Please don’t worry . . . for the most part, everybody is going to be fine.’ People walked out of there feeling pretty good.”

But the “tensions” remain, as she tries to be the reform District Attorney she was elected to be.

During her speech before the union, Rollins, 47, laid out her vision for the office. She pledged to assign more detectives of color to the homicide unit, place more women in top positions, and hire people of all ages — from millennials to seniors — for jobs such as secretary, investigator, and victim witness advocate.

“I want my office to look like this room,” Rollins told the union employees.

There remains a simplistic view of what’s wrong with the system and what will fix it. There are “detectives of color” on the job, and getting a bullet in the head by one of them kills just as well as a detective of, what’s the right way to say it, no color. There have been “women in top positions,” like Linda Fairstein, who was instrumental in coercing false confessions from the Central Park Five.

The narrative of the shallow, that black skin and female genitalia is all one needs to know about a person to recreate the system, isn’t a substitute for hard thought and real answers. Is Rollins just playing her audience, or does she actually not grasp that race and gender isn’t a magic bullet for justice?

Justice Jackson summed up the job of prosecutor “to do justice,” by which he meant that they could play hardball, but not lowball. Rollins’ rhetoric is that she wants to play softball if she’s going to play ball at all. Whether that’s what she really plans to do, however, isn’t yet clear.

“I think she will take an evenhanded approach, notwithstanding some of the rhetoric during the campaign that has some law enforcement people concerned,” Kelly said. “She’s very practical.”

We need prosecutors. There are bad people out there. There are people who do bad things. There are victims. There are even “survivors,” who took the bullet and lived to identify the person who fired it. Sometimes they’re black and brown. Sometimes they’re white. Some are men and some are women. Some are even children.

How we deal with them, what best serves societal interests, should always be subject to scrutiny, but that they exist isn’t in dispute.

The job of prosecutor is to prosecute. They can be unduly harsh in their approach, charging crimes in excess of what the facts can prove, lacking the empathy to fit the punishment to the individual to serve the legitimate goals of sentence. Being dishonest in the presentation, and concealment, of evidence. Ignoring the constitutional rights of defendants. Prosecuting means to “do justice,” not just convict. Sometimes, convicting will be doing justice.

There may be some racist who applies for the job of “putting people of color in jail every single day,” but most apply for the job of prosecuting whoever committed an offense, regardless of their skin color, so that victims don’t suffer the ravages of crime. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and if a District Attorney thinks otherwise, she shouldn’t be in the job. We need better prosecutors, but we still need prosecutors.

Rollins’ Good Intentions and Bad Question republished via Simple Justice

[abassi-okoro]

I’M NOT RACIST BUT . . .

I was speaking with a friend of mine who is a white female and considering the latest social unrest here in the states, we began the discussion about racism. The one thing I’ve learned being a black man involved in discussions with white people on racial disparity is that every white person has denied whole heartily being a racist or at the very least, being “prejudice.” Now let’s get technical for a moment. Racism is an industrial and institutionalized system of oppression based on the rules or illusions of power. It’s a system built upon one system which is build upon another that is governed and guarded by people in key positions to open and close certain doors of achievement for certain individuals. Not every white person has that power. In fact, your average white American is not privy to that type of power and wouldn’t know how to use it if they had it.

However, they do directly and indirectly benefit from other whites possessing and using that power. We call that today, ‘White Privilege.’ But this is not the same as prejudice. You do not need to have “power” to be prejudice because prejudice is nothing more than an opinion. It’s a bias. You can be biased towards anyone and anything. You may be a Republican and because you’re a Republican, you automatically hate Democrats. You don’t hate Democrats based on what they are, you hate Democrats because you’ve been conditioned to accept what you think YOU are (whether you truly understand it politically or not). That’s called “Biased Classification” or “Selective Class Bias.” You may be heterosexual and because you’re heterosexual, you automatically have homophobic feelings towards people who are homosexual. You may not know anything about that person only that he or she is a homosexual and that’s enough data for you to form a negative opinion of that person. That’s how prejudice works. It’s an opinion or bias not based on reason, logic or actual experience. So by definition, not all white people are racist but by definition, all white people do have prejudices because to not have a biased opinion (whether conscious or unconscious) is an impossibility.

When it comes how whites view blacks, there’s Racial Cognitive Dissonance. Racial Cognitive Dissonance is an uncomfortable sense of discord, disharmony, confusion, or conflict experienced by people in the midst of change in their cultural and racial environment. It’s usually due to holding two contradicting perceptions or beliefs. For example, when it comes to racism and race related issues, white people will say one thing and do another or will make grandiose claims of helping to end racism but will then turn around and debate the validity of racial claims made by black people. If a white person says, “It’s so sad that the black fella got killed by the police BUT  . . .“, that is racial cognitive dissonance or having a double conscience. It’s when people try to find excuses to not drop or give up their prejudices all together. All of this falls under the umbrella of White Privilege. White privilege can best be described as the epistemological solidification of white normalcy among and within the majority of the Western white populations. Peggy McIntosh, the first author to aptly define and articulate a definition of white privilege, states that:

Whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when [white people] work to benefit others, this is seen as work which will allow ‘[people of color]’ to be more like us.

This creates a model where white people will generally feel uncomfortable when their ideas about race conflict with their emotions like compassion and sympathy and so they will find a need to rationalize that inner conflict. A common example is when a white person is un-apologetically racist, but has friends who are black. This happens more often than you’d expect. White people learn to think of the black people they are friends with as “exceptions” to their prejudice beliefs, so then they can continue to stereotype every other black person who they don’t know. This is the white person who believes that all blacks are thugs and criminals and yet has that one black friend that he thinks he can trust. If you should ask him how his prejudice makes any kind of logical sense considering that he has a black friend, he would say something like this; “Oh, well my friend is a good black person” or “I’m not talking about him. I’m talking about all the other blacks.” I’ve even heard white people try to justify the use of the word ‘Nigger’ by redefining the term and claiming that “Nigger” means an “ignorant person” and that white people can be niggers also. Or my personal favorite . . .  “there’s black people and then there’s niggers. The black folks who are good, hard-working, honest people are the black people and the ones who are lazy and good-for-nothin’ are the niggers!”  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to listen to this crazy rhetoric from white people.

Perhaps the biggest and most obvious contradiction or dissonance is that of when you speak to the average white American – they claim that they’re not racist or even prejudice and they want to work towards racial solidarity yet, popular culture in the United States continues to be saturated by racial stereotypes and racial prejudice. Black men are still seen as criminals, black women are still seen as angry and over-sexual, Latinos are still seen as thieves, Asian men are still seen as technological but socially awkward, and Arabs are still seen as terrorist and everyone who isn’t white is seen as “minorities.” But let’s be fair, being biased is not a crime. In fact, being biased is somewhat natural but what’s not natural is being biased by the belief in stereotypes and especially with the wealth of information at our fingertips in today’s society. There’s no excuse to be racially ignorant believing any and every narrative that comes your way without personal investigation. At the very least . . . do a quick Google search. It would save you much embarrassment.

I was asked once, “why is so damn difficult to talk about race with white people? Must they debate everything?!”

A person will only debate a topic when he does not believe or agree or subscribe to the topic being discussed. If white people are debating race issues then it would occur to me that they do not believe that race is an issue or that certain components of the topic are less of an issue than others. Fair enough but many white people do not believe that racism is as big of a problem as black people and the media are reporting and so not only will they accuse the media of sensationalism but they will try to convince black people that it’s all a figment of our imagination. Consider this . . . If a Jehovah Witness knocks on my door and begins speaking about their beliefs and I feel compelled to debate those core beliefs then that must mean that I do not agree with their belief system or else I’d have no reason to debate. So it’s obvious that the white people who are busy arguing and debating with black people about racism are doing so because they do not truly believe it’s a problem. And THAT’S the problem! But how can you expect for white people to see racism and discrimination as a problem? If you do manage to convince whites that racism is a serious problem, they might see it as an exclusive problem to the black community but also believing the issues with race can be eradicated if black people would simply adjust their behavior. After all, racism is a false concept to them that they often try to explain away with as little accountability as possible. This is why they have a hard time “seeing” racism.

Wealthy people have a hard time seeing why a poor person is living in poverty and they will always have a complacent and condescending tone about their beliefs and while trying to explain their position on poverty. You’ll usually hear something from rich people along the lines of, “you have both your arms and both your legs. You’re just as capable as anyone else, you have just as much opportunity as anyone else. Look, I did it. You’re just being lazy.” Black people hear that same self-righteous arrogance from white people when we discuss racism. White folks will say something along the lines of, “Oh please. I work just as hard as you, I don’t get any handouts because I’m white, you have the same opportunities as I do, I don’t have white privilege, you’re just pulling the race-card. You have Affirmative Action, I didn’t have help. What about black-on-black crime?”

You can’t fix what you deny exist. Whites have a difficult time identifying prejudice or any of the types of racism, even subtle racism. There are four types of subtle racism that whites have a difficult time recognizing but practice more than they know;

Symbolic Racism: Symbolic racists - rejects old-style racism but still expresses prejudice indirectly (e.g., as opposition to policies that help racial minorities).

Ambivalent Racism: Ambivalent racists experience an emotional conflict between positive and negative feelings toward stigmatized racial groups.

Modern racism: Modern racists see racism as wrong but view racial minorities as making unfair demands or receiving too many resources.

Aversive Racism: Aversive racists believe in egalitarian principles such as racial equality but have a personal aversion toward racial minorities.

Most so-called “decent” white folks who feel strongly about equal rights may still practice one of these four forms of subtle racism. The most common of the four that I see with even my white friends is that of Symbolic Racism. I had a conversation not too long ago with a white male who rejected any type of racism but then insisted that Affirmative Action should be eliminated so that no one (black or white) benefits. His sentiments according to him represented “leveling the playing field.” However, he failed to understand that the you cannot level the playing field when one side doesn’t have an organized team. You can not balance a society (already dominated by one group) by stripping away certain programs that brings the downtrodden up to a level where they need to be in order to compete successfully on that field. He also failed to understand the reason for such government aided programs in the first place (to help compensate for 399 years of  the brutality of free slave labor that financed this country.) He also believed that if whites couldn’t use the “N-Word” then no one should. I tried to explain to him how privileged and narcissistic that was to think that if something is off-limits to whites then it should automatically be off-limits to everyone.

Another white friend of mine about a year ago seemed very compassionate towards how blacks were being treated and would often respond on social media with an array of, “Oh that’s so sad, it’s horrible what happened to that poor man, I’m so angry” and so on. She didn’t seem to have a problem with my race related discussions until one particular discussion had me pointing the finger of accountability at white people, in which most of the time, that’s necessary. Suddenly she didn’t agree with what was happening to blacks. Suddenly, I was called a “racist” for recognizing racism and suddenly I was at the receiving end of another white lecture on if black people would just stop discussing race so much then racism would just magically vanish. I alone was even accused of being the source in which racism is perpetuated in this society by not “giving it a rest!” I didn’t realize I had so much power. That’s Ambivalent Racism and that’s when a person is in constant conflict with themselves emotionally, bouncing back and forth between what’s right and their own self-identity and racial pride while still having racist undertones in their belief system and views.

A few years prior, a white blogger named Patrick K., stated to me that black people perhaps do experience “some” racism but a lot of it we “bring on ourselves.” He went on to state that it’s the way we dress and it’s the fact that we don’t have adequate black leadership and he even had the audacity to claim that “Black-on-Black crime” makes white people not want to give us the benefit of the doubt. However, there were three major problems with his perspective. 1. Black men in three-piece suits are also racially profiled and killed by white police officers. 2. There hasn’t been adequate white leadership in this country since John F. Kennedy, and 3. eighty-four percent (84%) of white people murdered are murdered by other whites. In fact, whites kill more whites each year than blacks kill each other, and white people commit more crimes than blacks (2 to 1 in arrest, forcible rape, larceny and homicide). Yet, he used popular stereotypes (not facts) to form his bias without reason or personal experience. That’s Modern Racism!

While recently speaking with a white woman, she made the statement, “I just wish everyone could stop this madness.” She seemed exhausted by the constant hammering of race and conflict in our society and especially after the latest incidents of police brutality towards black men. She’s not alone in her wishes however, shortly after exhibiting signs of compassion towards black men, she made the statement, “if black people would just not get so antsy when pulled over then we wouldn’t have so many dead black people.” I noticed that she placed the accountability of police brutality on the victim and not the perpetrator. It happens with rape victims as well. The accountability for action always seems to fall on the one who suffers. “Maybe if she had dressed more appropriately, maybe if she wasn’t behaving like a whore, maybe if she didn’t walk home alone.” 

We live in a world where we put more focus on telling women how NOT to get raped than telling rapist NOT to commit the act. Similarly, we tell blacks HOW to act when dealing with a racist system as opposed to dismantling the racist system. But what do you expect? We’re a nation that spends billions on modern medicine to get rid of the symptoms and not the illness. This white woman went on to present a laundry list that was reminiscent of the Jim Crow Rules of Engagement. Her list was not only ridiculous but it was painfully obvious that it was from the mindset of a white person with a mystical and animated perception of racism and discrimination. Perhaps she meant well but here’s the question,

Why should we have to navigate through the terrain of racism and prejudice by being “careful” not to do this and not to do that while white people with their privilege sit back comfortably dictating to others how to live within their deadly system that they would rather ask us to tolerate than to help destroy?

That is Aversive Racism! I have had white friends practice all four forms of subtle racism (right to my face) and most are completely unaware of it. They think they’re being helpful, they think they’re doing their part, and giving great advice. They do not believe that they are saying anything wrong and this is precisely why people will turn and say, “I don’t like talking about race with black people because I can never say the right things.” And because black people recognize subtle racism and sly remarks and passive aggressiveness – it doesn’t register to us that white people are actually trying to help. And we don’t fall for it. When white people become passive aggressive, we don’t fall for it. When they become arrogant in their comments or conceited, we don’t fall for it. When they adopt a “savior” mentality or parental attitude by lecturing black people, WE DON’T FALL FOR IT! And so when we don’t take white people’s sympathy, their response is to write us off as being, “too sensitive” or “too angry” to listen to their reason. It never occurs to them that they’re wrong. They just believe that they’re right and that black people are too delicate to listen to them tell us how to deal with the racism that they created in this country.

It’s white people’s inability to fully understand the dichotomy of racism and their inability to comprehend a basic racial and cultural concept that doesn’t include “white-thinking” and without an inflated sense of white self-importance.

In other words, white people have a hard time processing a reality that doesn’t center around them. They have been convinced that they are the center of the Universe. The quicker they realize that they are not, and the sooner they realize that even with good intent they are still biased and prejudice then the sooner we can sit down and discuss these topics without anyone feeling the need to “lecture” or debate or become arrogant and narcissistic. If you’re white and you really want to have a discussion about racism . . . first realize that you just may be racist yourself regardless of how much you deny it. We will still work with you if you have some prejudices. We can get over that because we have plenty of prejudices about you. We really don’t like you much either but we are tolerant of white nonsense. 

- Abassi Okoro

[johnclapperne]

{#TransparentTuesday} It’s 2018, bitches.

“I could never wear that though,”

my client Amelia said quickly, about a dress she mentioned really loving and wanting to buy.

“Why not?” I asked.

Amelia launched into a well-practiced list of what was wrong with her body that kept her from being able to wear this item of clothing– her torso was too short, her hips dip in at the sides, her butt was flat, she had cellulite, etc.

I listened, but then pointed out that none of those were actual reasons she couldn’t wear the dress. They were just fearful observations about how what people might see about her, if she did.

After a long moment, Amelia replied “Then I guess I can’t wear it because I’d be too uncomfortable. I’d spend all night worrying about how I looked in it.”

This conversation represents a very common (false) belief out there, that in order to do something, we must already be comfortable doing it.

As if discomfort and fear represent actual limitations to what we’re capable of, and we can’t take action until we stop feeling them.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As Mark twain once said, “Courage is not the absence of fear. It is acting in spite of it.”

This is an important distinction because, as a woman in today’s body-shaming culture, it can be absolutely terrifying to get dressed, do what you want to do, and live your damn life.

There are endless rules to be followed: hide your flaws, dress for your body type, look “age-appropriate” but also look as young as possible, and only wear things that are “flattering,” which is a secret woman-code for “things that make you look thin.”

The rules are literally infinite. You can’t wear shorts if you have thick thighs. You can’t wear a bikini if you’re fat. You have to cover up your skin if it’s not perfect. You have to relax/blowdry your hair or it’s not professional. You can’t wear a tank top if you have flabby arms.

But what are these rules really about? They’re certainly not about helping someone live her best life! No.

At their core, these rules are all about helping someone avoid feeling fear, shame, embarrassment, or discomfort

Now, there is some very real truth here. If you have a certain body size or shape, and you dress a certain kind of way, some people might shame you, and you might experience some of those feelings.

This shaming risk goes doubly for POC, disabled people, LGBTQ individuals, and anyone who doesn’t conform to a gender norms. After all, everyone in our society has been brainwashed by the same damn rules.

But that doesn’t mean you have to follow those rules.

Let me say that again.

Avoiding feelings (like discomfort, fear, shame, or embarrassment) is not a valid reason to do– or not do– anything.

Those feelings are uncomfortable, yes. They can even be wildly painful. But they are not bad, and they’re not dangerous, and the more you break the “rules” and face them, the less scary they become.

When it comes to seeing change and moving toward a freer and more self-loving world, we need more people who are willing to face their fears and handle the discomfort of taking action that scares the piss out of them.

We need more women bucking the endless lists of “I have to…” and “I can’t…” and just showing up as their gloriously authentic selves, whichever way they damn please, despite being afraid or uncomfortable.

After all, living a “safe” life doesn’t work anyway– you might avoid major fear and discomfort by following all the rules, but you also avoid major joy, pleasure, and fulfillment.

The big, juicy, authentic life you were meant for is on the other side of your comfort zone, mama.

We don’t need more willpower or discipline in 2018. We don’t even need more self-acceptance and self-love. What we need is more fucking courage.

Why?

Because as a woman today, accepting yourself is an act of fucking rebellion.

Loving yourself means bucking the oppressive narrative that there is something wrong with you, and that you’re unworthy.

Showing up exactly the way you are, without attempting to fix or change yourself, is a massive act of courage.

Luckily, courage gets easier with practice– the more fears you face, the braver you get.

So let’s make 2018 the year of taking courageous action despite the fact that we’re terrified.

Let’s make 2018 the year that we stop letting discomfort be a reason to do (or not do) literally anything.

Get uncomfortable, my darlings. The more uncomfortable the better.

What haven’t you let yourself do yet because it makes you too uncomfortable?

Make it your goal this year to go do that thing.

Tell your boss he’s making you uncomfortable. Go barefaced to work. Refuse to diet. Say no to stuff you don’t want to do. Start the business or blog you’ve been dreaming of. Wear the damn dress.

Not because you’re finally ready and comfortable doing these things, but because you’re committed to practicing courage.

I’ll be right here with you, facing my fears and practicing courage right along with you, of course.

Because women (and gender non-conforming people!) will not be be told what we can and cannot do, and we won’t let a sexist, racist, body-shaming society control us.

Not anymore.

It’s 2018, bitches.

<3

Jessi

The post {#TransparentTuesday} It’s 2018, bitches. appeared first on Jessi Kneeland.

http://ift.tt/2qd6IsP

[almajonesnjna]

{#TransparentTuesday} It’s 2018, bitches.

“I could never wear that though,”

my client Amelia said quickly, about a dress she mentioned really loving and wanting to buy.

“Why not?” I asked.

Amelia launched into a well-practiced list of what was wrong with her body that kept her from being able to wear this item of clothing– her torso was too short, her hips dip in at the sides, her butt was flat, she had cellulite, etc.

I listened, but then pointed out that none of those were actual reasons she couldn’t wear the dress. They were just fearful observations about how what people might see about her, if she did.

After a long moment, Amelia replied “Then I guess I can’t wear it because I’d be too uncomfortable. I’d spend all night worrying about how I looked in it.”

This conversation represents a very common (false) belief out there, that in order to do something, we must already be comfortable doing it.

As if discomfort and fear represent actual limitations to what we’re capable of, and we can’t take action until we stop feeling them.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As Mark twain once said, “Courage is not the absence of fear. It is acting in spite of it.”

This is an important distinction because, as a woman in today’s body-shaming culture, it can be absolutely terrifying to get dressed, do what you want to do, and live your damn life.

There are endless rules to be followed: hide your flaws, dress for your body type, look “age-appropriate” but also look as young as possible, and only wear things that are “flattering,” which is a secret woman-code for “things that make you look thin.”

The rules are literally infinite. You can’t wear shorts if you have thick thighs. You can’t wear a bikini if you’re fat. You have to cover up your skin if it’s not perfect. You have to relax/blowdry your hair or it’s not professional. You can’t wear a tank top if you have flabby arms.

But what are these rules really about? They’re certainly not about helping someone live her best life! No.

At their core, these rules are all about helping someone avoid feeling fear, shame, embarrassment, or discomfort

Now, there is some very real truth here. If you have a certain body size or shape, and you dress a certain kind of way, some people might shame you, and you might experience some of those feelings.

This shaming risk goes doubly for POC, disabled people, LGBTQ individuals, and anyone who doesn’t conform to a gender norms. After all, everyone in our society has been brainwashed by the same damn rules.

But that doesn’t mean you have to follow those rules.

Let me say that again.

Avoiding feelings (like discomfort, fear, shame, or embarrassment) is not a valid reason to do– or not do– anything.

Those feelings are uncomfortable, yes. They can even be wildly painful. But they are not bad, and they’re not dangerous, and the more you break the “rules” and face them, the less scary they become.

When it comes to seeing change and moving toward a freer and more self-loving world, we need more people who are willing to face their fears and handle the discomfort of taking action that scares the piss out of them.

We need more women bucking the endless lists of “I have to…” and “I can’t…” and just showing up as their gloriously authentic selves, whichever way they damn please, despite being afraid or uncomfortable.

After all, living a “safe” life doesn’t work anyway– you might avoid major fear and discomfort by following all the rules, but you also avoid major joy, pleasure, and fulfillment.

The big, juicy, authentic life you were meant for is on the other side of your comfort zone, mama.

We don’t need more willpower or discipline in 2018. We don’t even need more self-acceptance and self-love. What we need is more fucking courage.

Why?

Because as a woman today, accepting yourself is an act of fucking rebellion.

Loving yourself means bucking the oppressive narrative that there is something wrong with you, and that you’re unworthy.

Showing up exactly the way you are, without attempting to fix or change yourself, is a massive act of courage.

Luckily, courage gets easier with practice– the more fears you face, the braver you get.

So let’s make 2018 the year of taking courageous action despite the fact that we’re terrified.

Let’s make 2018 the year that we stop letting discomfort be a reason to do (or not do) literally anything.

Get uncomfortable, my darlings. The more uncomfortable the better.

What haven’t you let yourself do yet because it makes you too uncomfortable?

Make it your goal this year to go do that thing.

Tell your boss he’s making you uncomfortable. Go barefaced to work. Refuse to diet. Say no to stuff you don’t want to do. Start the business or blog you’ve been dreaming of. Wear the damn dress.

Not because you’re finally ready and comfortable doing these things, but because you’re committed to practicing courage.

I’ll be right here with you, facing my fears and practicing courage right along with you, of course.

Because women (and gender non-conforming people!) will not be be told what we can and cannot do, and we won’t let a sexist, racist, body-shaming society control us.

Not anymore.

It’s 2018, bitches.

<3

Jessi

The post {#TransparentTuesday} It’s 2018, bitches. appeared first on Jessi Kneeland.

http://ift.tt/2qd6IsP

[joshuabradleyn]

{#TransparentTuesday} It’s 2018, bitches.

“I could never wear that though,”

my client Amelia said quickly, about a dress she mentioned really loving and wanting to buy.

“Why not?” I asked.

Amelia launched into a well-practiced list of what was wrong with her body that kept her from being able to wear this item of clothing– her torso was too short, her hips dip in at the sides, her butt was flat, she had cellulite, etc.

I listened, but then pointed out that none of those were actual reasons she couldn’t wear the dress. They were just fearful observations about how what people might see about her, if she did.

After a long moment, Amelia replied “Then I guess I can’t wear it because I’d be too uncomfortable. I’d spend all night worrying about how I looked in it.”

This conversation represents a very common (false) belief out there, that in order to do something, we must already be comfortable doing it.

As if discomfort and fear represent actual limitations to what we’re capable of, and we can’t take action until we stop feeling them.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As Mark twain once said, “Courage is not the absence of fear. It is acting in spite of it.”

This is an important distinction because, as a woman in today’s body-shaming culture, it can be absolutely terrifying to get dressed, do what you want to do, and live your damn life.

There are endless rules to be followed: hide your flaws, dress for your body type, look “age-appropriate” but also look as young as possible, and only wear things that are “flattering,” which is a secret woman-code for “things that make you look thin.”

The rules are literally infinite. You can’t wear shorts if you have thick thighs. You can’t wear a bikini if you’re fat. You have to cover up your skin if it’s not perfect. You have to relax/blowdry your hair or it’s not professional. You can’t wear a tank top if you have flabby arms.

But what are these rules really about? They’re certainly not about helping someone live her best life! No.

At their core, these rules are all about helping someone avoid feeling fear, shame, embarrassment, or discomfort

Now, there is some very real truth here. If you have a certain body size or shape, and you dress a certain kind of way, some people might shame you, and you might experience some of those feelings.

This shaming risk goes doubly for POC, disabled people, LGBTQ individuals, and anyone who doesn’t conform to a gender norms. After all, everyone in our society has been brainwashed by the same damn rules.

But that doesn’t mean you have to follow those rules.

Let me say that again.

Avoiding feelings (like discomfort, fear, shame, or embarrassment) is not a valid reason to do– or not do– anything.

Those feelings are uncomfortable, yes. They can even be wildly painful. But they are not bad, and they’re not dangerous, and the more you break the “rules” and face them, the less scary they become.

When it comes to seeing change and moving toward a freer and more self-loving world, we need more people who are willing to face their fears and handle the discomfort of taking action that scares the piss out of them.

We need more women bucking the endless lists of “I have to…” and “I can’t…” and just showing up as their gloriously authentic selves, whichever way they damn please, despite being afraid or uncomfortable.

After all, living a “safe” life doesn’t work anyway– you might avoid major fear and discomfort by following all the rules, but you also avoid major joy, pleasure, and fulfillment.

The big, juicy, authentic life you were meant for is on the other side of your comfort zone, mama.

We don’t need more willpower or discipline in 2018. We don’t even need more self-acceptance and self-love. What we need is more fucking courage.

Why?

Because as a woman today, accepting yourself is an act of fucking rebellion.

Loving yourself means bucking the oppressive narrative that there is something wrong with you, and that you’re unworthy.

Showing up exactly the way you are, without attempting to fix or change yourself, is a massive act of courage.

Luckily, courage gets easier with practice– the more fears you face, the braver you get.

So let’s make 2018 the year of taking courageous action despite the fact that we’re terrified.

Let’s make 2018 the year that we stop letting discomfort be a reason to do (or not do) literally anything.

Get uncomfortable, my darlings. The more uncomfortable the better.

What haven’t you let yourself do yet because it makes you too uncomfortable?

Make it your goal this year to go do that thing.

Tell your boss he’s making you uncomfortable. Go barefaced to work. Refuse to diet. Say no to stuff you don’t want to do. Start the business or blog you’ve been dreaming of. Wear the damn dress.

Not because you’re finally ready and comfortable doing these things, but because you’re committed to practicing courage.

I’ll be right here with you, facing my fears and practicing courage right along with you, of course.

Because women (and gender non-conforming people!) will not be be told what we can and cannot do, and we won’t let a sexist, racist, body-shaming society control us.

Not anymore.

It’s 2018, bitches.

<3

Jessi

The post {#TransparentTuesday} It’s 2018, bitches. appeared first on Jessi Kneeland.

http://ift.tt/2qd6IsP

[audience3p18]

Public Opinion and Audience Membership in the age of Trump

Never in my lifetime has there been a political spectacle as large and as entertaining as the 2016 United States Presidential election and the subsequent Trump presidency. I have had a daily routine that starts the same way everyday: wake up, grab my phone, and check Donald Trump’s Twitter account. Due to the absurdity of his persona, and the ease of access to him the audience has via social media, the election of Donald Trump has turned the United States presidency into the best reality show there is.

Thanks to the rise of social media, politics has never been easier to follow along and become involved with. The 2016 US presidential election became a war on social media. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton continuously attacked each other on Twitter and much of the campaign, especially towards the end, was focused on why the opponent was unfit to become the president rather than any policy decisions. Clinton labeled Trump as sexist, racist, and incompetent while on the flip side Trump labelled Hillary as crooked and untrustworthy. The rhetoric on social media surrounding each campaign was more obsessed with email servers and “locker room talk” than any actual policy position or plan once a winner was declared.

“Fake News” and “Fact Check” became two of the most important and widespread terms in the media surrounding the election. Donald Trump was able to successfully create massive distrust of mainstream media sources, especially amongst his right-wing voter base, by essentially labelling any news story that was critical of him as “fake news.”  This rhetoric has radically shifted politics in the United States, as it seems like half of the voter base no longer believes the news if they don’t agree with it – which in my opinion (and many political science researcher’s opinion) is dangerous to the democracy of the United States. I think that the important thing to realize about Donald Trump is that a lot of what he does is simply a persona – something he has created for the media and not actually genuine. It’s important to note that before Trump became the president he was most known for being the host of “The Apprentice – “where it was his job to be crazy and say outrageous things for the sake of TV ratings. This Trump “Apprentice” persona has been carried over to his campaign and his presidency. The idea of the persona as described by Brown (2015) “A persona can be a real person or a fictional character encountered through any form of mediated interaction. Scholars in information studies describe personae as ‘hypothetical archetypes’ who ‘are not real people but they represent real people.’” It’s important to look at Donald Trump’s history before you dive into his “presidential” persona. He was a registered democrat for most of the 1980s as well as the 2000s. Trump then shifted his political persona to right after the election of Barack Obama in 2008. Trump has created a not entirely real version of himself for his political career. He saw that many people on the political right were mad about immigration and loss of manufacturing jobs under Obama and created his persona to connect with those blue collar and far right voters – which ultimately won him the White House.

Trump’s most dedicated voter base worship his persona. Worship of a media persona can often be intense and dangerous, and the Trump base’s worship of him certainly has negative effects on the United States democratic process. Brown (2015) describes the most intense form of worship as: “The third and most intense level of celebrity worship is referred to as the “mild pathological” dimension (Maltby et al.,2005, p.1166). They imply that celebrity worship at this third level is both abnormal and harmful, resulting in the willingness of audience members to do almost anything to please the celebrity.” Trump has created a base that believes everything he says is correct and that the mainstream media and establishment politicians are a “swamp” that needs to be drained. The kind of Trump worship that we see online in places like reddit.com/r/The_Donald or on Infowars or Breitbart is dangerous to the democratic process itself. A huge part of the electorate (Trump supporters) blindly follow their leader despite his incompetence, and refuse to believe any legitimate public opinion poll or anything that goes against their views is true. Trump has used the politics of division masterfully in order to become the president, but diving audiences so drastically may have negative repercussions for future United States presidential campaigns and elections.  

As an active political audience member, it is crucial to be aware of public opinion polling in order to remain informed. It is also important to have a high media literacy in order to understand what the news is saying and what kind of bias they may have – especially in the age of Trump where bad news is fake news. As media consumers, it is important to be aware of agenda setting and narratives that are set in the media and how they can affect public opinion in politics. “The ability of the mass media to transfer salience of items and their attributes from the news agenda to the public was called agenda setting effect” (Sullivan, 70). It’s important as an audience member to be aware of how different media organizations may set their agenda and spin stories in certain ways. A number of things have to be considered such as ownership structure, target audience, advertisers, and political party affiliations.

Fox News is the easiest United States mainstream example to look at when it comes to agenda setting and public opinion.  Fox News is well known to target an older, conservative demographic. This means that most of the stories that are run on Fox tend to be pro Trump and pro Republican. MSNBC on the other hand is pro democrat and was largely in favour of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. No news coverage – especially political news coverage in the 21st century is objective. Every station, paper, and broadcaster not just in the US but in Canada and internationally as well has a political bias towards certain candidates or political parties. Agenda setting and political bias is important to be aware of as an audience member because it can also affect public opinions. For example, the public opinion on Trump of most Fox news viewers is good, but in contrast many independent pollsters have Trump’s approval ratings as record low for any US president. This means that the information receive would vary drastically from depending on the source of the information. This brings us back to the danger of Trump and his anti journalism “fake news” persona; a large percentage of Trump supporters refuse to believe negative coverage simply because he tells them to. This means that many of his supporters cannot have their opinions changed when shown contradictory evidence because they have been conditioned to not believe anything that goes against them. Information has never been easier to obtain than in the internet age, but it is still incredibly hard to be an informed media audience member. This is because there are so many sources that provide contradictory information that it can be hard to judge for yourself what is real and what is fake news. Things get further complicated on social media because of the large amounts of trolls who simply provide false information or antagonize other internet users for fun.

Information has never been easier to obtain than in the internet age, but it is still incredibly hard to be an informed media audience member. This is because there are so many sources that provide contradictory information that it can be hard to judge for yourself what is real and what is fake news. Things get further complicated on social media because of the large amounts of trolls who simply provide false information or antagonize other internet users for fun. Misinformation and fake news is rampant and the most powerful person in the world is actively trying to spread lies and hatred as long as it benefits him and his administration. It is more important than ever to be an educated audience member, but the current media landscape on the internet does not make it easy to do so. Audience membership and public opinion in the age of Trump totally depends on the source and the medium, not so much the information or the message itself.